The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1919-05-06
Court Proceedings

continued and the jury was dismissed
Robbins VS.. Haines was a replevil
suit. The complaint was amended t
make Woolman S. Klrkbride, a de
PENDANT. Robbins lived on Kirk bride
farm and the Sheriff attached som
goods. Robbins brought suit to ge
damages because of excessive amour
of attachment. Kirkbride put in
counter claim to cover the amount The
plaintiff was suing for. The verdic
was six cents damages against Kirk
bride and the Sheriff and Kirkbride
counter clailn was not allowed.
Wilson against Potts was case il
which the plaintiff sued for the loss O
an eye which was shot out. The jury
failed to agree.
Nobody appeared to defend the sui
of Sullivan against Walker, which
was a damage case and a verdict O
81. 900 was directed by the court in
favor of the plaintiff.
Cook against Hartman was the claim
of man and his wife for damages sus
tanned in an automobile accident. The
verdict was $3.50 for the husband and
$3.50 for the wife,
Before Judge Wells, Thursday, sew.
eral matters in the Orphans court were
given attention and then Miss Hughes,
the county truant officer, had six cases
of parents neglecting to send their chill
dren to school. They all came from
Marlton. In all but two of them the
Judge found there was some excuse for
the children being absent. In one of
the cases he fined the father SIS, and in
another he adjudged the father guilty
of being disorderly person but
suspended sentence.
Louis H. Blaif, of Wrightstown, was
called up on waiver of indictment
charging him with stealing an auto
mobile. He pleaded not guilty.
Clifford r. Powell, representing pros
ecutor Kelsey, asked for sentence on
Theresa Reeves, who had pleaded gull
ty to assault and battery on Mrs.
Florence Slimm. Robert Peacock had
been engaged to present Mrs. Slimn's
case and he related the circumstances
as he understood them. He said Mrs.
Reeves and Mrs. Slimm both live on
Rutland avenue. A family by the
name of Sturgis, occupied house be-
longing to Mrs. Reeves husband and
vas moving out on the 14th of April.
Mrs. Slimm was in the house assisting
Mrs. Sturgis, when Mrs. Reeves sud-
denly rushed in and with the handle
of hoe or rake struck Mrs. Slimm
over the shoulder three or four blows,
leaving bruises that were examined by
a physician, whose certificate as to
their nature was presented to the
court
Mr.. Peacock also presented a petition
signed by numerous persons to the eff
feet that Mrs. Reeves is not desirable
citizen to have around, the neighbors
living in fear of her. Mr. Peacock said
she had been arrested before but had
never, for some reason, been brought
before the court. He felt that SEN
tence to the county Jail was the only
thing that would bring this woman to
a full realization of her actions.
James Mercer Davis represented the
He said if Ms. Reeves
was guilty of half the things that Pea
cock had told she evidently ought to
be hung. He admitted that the de
PENDANT was not justified in commit
ting the assault but that she was pro-
voked. Mrs. Reeves felt that Mrs.
Slimm did not have any right in the
house belonging to her husband and
rushed over to tell her to go out. Mrs.
Slimm tainted the defendant and
even offered to strike her first and that
enraged Mrs. Reeves to such an extent
that she did commit the assault which
Mr.. Davis again admitted was not
justified. 1t is simply case of neigh
borhood quarrel and if he were so dis
posed he might show up things on the
other side but he again admitted that
such action would not justify the as
sault. He called attention to the fact
that Mrs. Reeves has husband who
is an eminently respectable man and
who has held position with the rail-
road company for years. She also has
young daughter and if Jail sentence
were passed the innocent would have
to suffer with the guilty. Mr.. Davis
said he could not ask for suspension
of sentence but he thought fine would
be enough and if the neighbors would
mind their business he would assure
the court that Mrs. Reeves would keep
to a straight line.
Referring to the petition Mr.. Davis
said he did not believe the court would
allow itself to be influenced by any
paper signed by loeof women on the
engineering of Peacock. On the point
of Mrs. Reeves having been arrested
before at any time Davis said that was
false and if Peacock.would put wit.
ness on the stand to swear to such an
event, Davis would have the witness
arrested for perjury.
To this challenge Peacock at once
called Joseph Gregory, who swore that
he had Mrs. Reeves arrested for assault
and battery and she was held to await
the action of the grand jury. Gregory
said Mrs. Reeves brought a similar
action against him and the grand jury
ignored both complaints.
Judge Wells said there was a differ
ence in the statements of the attorney.
and he would have to take evidence
Mr.. Davis claimed that Mrs. Slimn
struck or attempted to strike the frs
blow and Peacock contended that tn,
assault was without provocation. Sc
he put the case off until Thursday.
Yesterday the case of Lindsay & Co.
against the city of Burlington, wa
taken up. This suit was the result o
alleged damages to the foundry build
ing of the plaintiffs, caused by tn
failure of the pumps which were in US
to carry off surface water to properly
perform their work. The plaintiff
! held that the pumping station and tn
| L
properly constructed. The defenc
was that the city could not be held fc
any defect of this kind and also claim
ed that the building damaged was o
a marshy piece of ground that was fri
quently overflowed by surface waite