Shannon Hill (Auburn Twp.) – Elmer Dunlap, one of our popular young men, was married on Tuesday to Miss Martha LaRue, of Rush, at the home of the bride, by Rev. Fosle. At the same time and place, Hazel LaRue and Harry Reimel were married. Mr. Dunlap and wife will spend their honeymoon at Rochester with his sister, Mrs. Leslie Conrad, and Mr. Reimel and wife will go to Philadelphia to visit relatives.

Elk Lake – P. B. Linaberry left his team standing in front of Tanner’s and they became frightened and ran away to the Caton cottage, where they were stopped by John Arnold.

Harford – Paul Stevens and Donald Hooven, assisted by Mitchell Hoovan, gave a magic lantern entertainment in the school house Monday night.

Flynn – The old saying that if March comes in like a lion it will go out like a lamb was fully verified this spring.

Kingsley – At the earnest request of the public, the U. P. C. U. of the Universalist church will repeat the drama, “Aunt Jerusha’s Quilting Party,” on Tuesday evening, April 14. Many new features will make up the program. Mrs. Geo. Terry, of Brooklyn, will give an illustrated poem by Jean Ingelow, “The Songs of Seven.” Admission 25 and 15 cents.

Oakley – Chicken thieves visited Naomi Tingley’s farm, Sunday night, walking off with four choice fowls.

Susquehanna – Many of the town people went up the new State road by the river to see the high water. Heretofore this was impossible, as the old road would be under water. Also Joseph Towner will be the steward for the poor farm the coming year.

Montrose – Photographer L. G. Titman has been having considerable success in taking pictures by the means of electric lights, having installed lamps that give about 2,500 candlepower at his studio. It is possible to take photographs at any time of the day or night with this equipment, which has attracted many who have found no time to come when Old Sol is shining his best.

Heart Lake – The Heart Lake Resort has been purchased by Mack & Jenkins, proprietors of The Subway Lunch, the deal being finished up the first of the week. Thereby, F. T. Mack and Z. D. Jenkins become sole owners and proprietors of this popular summer amusement place. The purchase price is not made public but the deal involves several thousand dollars. We understand they intend making numerous improvements this season and more during the fall or early next season. The tract of land takes up about eight acres of the most valuable land about the lake, with about 500 feet of water front, and the resort includes a merry-go-round, boarding house, dance hall, store, boat livery, naphtha launch, ball ground, picnic grounds and a large barn. Their opening dance at the lake will be held May 30, and they are now making plans for the annual “ever glorious 4th of July” celebrations. The young owners will continue to run The Subway Lunch on Public Avenue in Montrose, as in the past Mr. Mack will manage the Resort as heretofore, and Mr. Jenkins will remain in charge of The Subway.

Gibson – Our school will close its work Friday, April 3, and at this time three girls—Pauline Hill, Helen Low and Thelma Tompkins will graduate. Supt. James A. Coughlin, of Wilkes-Barre, will deliver the commencement address. The public is cordially invited; admission free.

Also Wednesday evening last, the many friends of Frank Shepherdson made him a birthday surprise. The going was bad, but a large number were present. One party changed vehicles three times—part of the way on sleighs, then on wagons, and finished up on foot.

Brooklyn – Quite a large number of ladies gathered at the home of Mrs. Wm. Gillespie recently, giving her a surprise and sewed her carpet rags. A fine dinner was served. Also The Orchard Co. men have finished trimming the Ely orchard and are now trimming on the Austin orchard.

Lynn – All persons having books belonging to the free library will please return them, as they will be sent away Monday next and a new supply received. Also Garney Smith has taken possession of the C. L. Berry farm which he has leased for a year. The only one thing needful now is the housekeeper, which rumor says will be along as soon as the roads get settled although we don’t hear Garney say much about it.

Birchardville – Special Easter services will be held at the church Sunday morning next, consisting of new Easter music by the choir and Sunday school and recitations, exercises and readings by the children and young people. All who can loan plants or flowers for the occasion are kindly requested to do so. There will be other decorations and also Easter badges for those who may not have them. An Easter offering for missions will be taken. A delegation of young people and children will be taken to Rush in the afternoon to repeat the program in the Baptist church.

Lathrop – A very valuable team, wagons, three sets of harness, blankets, etc., stolen from J. P. McKeon, the night of March 25, were located by Detective M. A. Rafter, of Scranton, who was assigned to the case last week, at Canadensis, near Stroudsburg, and are now in the owner’s possession. Detective Rafter and Mr.McKeon were in Stroudsburg Thursday, getting out a warrant for the thief, who, as yet, has not been found, and his brother, at whose place the stolen property was found, for receiving stolen goods.

Choconut – An Easter dance will be given by McCahill Bros., at Choconut Valley Inn, Friday evening, April 17th. Good music has been provided for this occasion and an enjoyable time anticipated, as usual. The McCahill’s are royal entertainers.

Uniondale – H. H. Howard, the proprietor of the temperance house, harvested a crop of ice 15” thick last week.

Snake Creek – B. L. Bailey has lumber on the ground for a new house, also the cellar dug and walled up. Also Ray Caswell and family, of Coneoght, Ohio, are to locate on the Caswell farm this spring.

Friendsville – The people of our town are very sorry to lose one of our farmer friends, Jos. Crowley.

New Milford – Charles Walker, proprietor of the Walker House, has been served with papers by the Constable of the town on a charge of violating the liquor licenses. Walker has been accused by the ministers of the town of selling liquor to minors, violating the Sunday law, and keeping a disorderly house.

No matter how hard legislators try to make a piece of legislation clear, there is inevitably litigation over the meaning of even the most common terms. When the language is clear, the litigation itself is usually curtailed – but never wholly eliminated. Too often, the statutory language is not drafted well and litigation springs up into every crack in the legislative pavement. From the perspective of the general public, I understand just how ridiculous some of the “statutory language” arguments appear. For attorneys, these statutory construction arguments are the bread and butter of the profession. And every time the legislature enacts a new piece of legislation, there is a new loaf on the table for consumption.

A recent example of a statutory construction argument occurred in the case of United States v. Castleman. In that case, James Castleman had been charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm under federal law – he had a previous conviction in 2001 in Tennessee for a misdemeanor domestic assault that required proof that the defendant “intentionally and knowingly caused bodily injury” to his domestic partner. Under federal law, a person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” cannot possess a firearm.

Thus, the question became a simple one – whether Castleman’s domestic violence conviction was a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under federal law. Congress attempted to provide some guidance what constituted a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” – the statute indicated that it must involve the “use or attempted use of physical force.” Alright, you would think that clears things up given that Castleman specifically pled to an offense that involved causing bodily injury. Ah, the obvious answer is never as obvious as it seems when you employ crafty attorney-wordsmiths.

An entire case before the United States Supreme Court centered upon the following phrase: “the use of physical force.” What do these enigmatic words mean? Castleman argued that his Tennessee conviction did not qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” because the state statutory language did not include any reference to the “use of physical force.” Castleman’s conviction proved that he had “intentionally and knowingly caused bodily injury” to his domestic partner, but it did not prove that he had done so through the use of “physical force.” Are you following this so far? Amazingly, the district court agreed with Castleman’s argument and dismissed the indictment – noting that the injury could have been caused “without violent contact” such as by giving the victim “a poisoned beverage.” I am not making this up – as ridiculous as it sounds – that is exactly what the district court decided. The government appealed that decision.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did not buy the “poisoned beverage” rationale, but in a 2-1 decision, it still found that Castleman’s state conviction was not a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” The Sixth Circuit decided that the “use of physical force” required proof that Castleman had engaged in “violent force.” In this regard, Castleman’s state conviction could have simply evidenced “a slight, nonserious physical injury with conduct that cannot be described as violent.” In other words, the Sixth Circuit was suggesting that there are domestic violence convictions that are really not all that violent – there are domestic abusers who simply use force, but not necessarily violent force, to cause injuries that are merely “slight” and “nonserious.” For these poor and misunderstood domestic abusers, there conviction would not qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of violence” and they would be free to possess firearms under federal law.

If you have managed to make it this far, I suspect that your general aversion to legalese has reached its limit. There is some good news – the entire United States Supreme Court put an end to this nonsense. By a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court determined that Castleman’s Tennessee charges plainly indicated that he used physical force on the mother of his child and that he caused physical injuries to her – those simple facts were enough for the Supreme Court to determine that Castleman’s conviction was a “misdemeanor crime of violence.” As a result, Castleman was prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. The words in the statute seemed straightforward and simple – but the law rarely allows for simplicity. Thankfully, the Supreme Court got it right.

Please submit any questions, concerns, or comments to Susquehanna County District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, Pennsylvania 18801 or at our website www.SusquehannaCounty-DA.org or discuss this and all articles at http://dadesk.blogspot.com/.