The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1851-06-28
Supreme Court.

DseJfsl! vs.. Cross-IEpea! from .KcHsnry.-
Mcclure and Diehey 70. the appellant, and Loop
fer the appellee
BeR ct al. vs. Sheldon ct al-LTror 10 .Nt-
Henry The court below rendered hual judg
ment on demurrer, without disposins of an issue
of fact found in the case-judgment reversed and
cause remanded--opnon Of the court by c. j.
Treat. Mcclure for plaintiffs in .rroy. Loop for
defendants.
Doe ct al Va. Rdttle-Error TO NcHoTg.-
Same attorneys-same question and decision,
Hard ais. vs.. Salisbury Ppeu! tro'" Cook.
We noticed the point, and arguments IN this
case last week. The Judgment Is reversed, the
cour, deciding that tho harbor master should have
been allowed to testify as to tho manner IN which
Capt. Salisbury managed the boat he commanded.
Opinion by Chief Justice Treat justice Num-
bull gives Il dissenting opinion IN the CASE
Pierce v. Carleton ct al-Ippsa! from 30
Dariesi Argued by Leland Tor appellate, aud
by Blackwell tor appellee; and under adsisement
We shall notice the points when the decision Is
gwen
Smiti ct al vs.. Harris ct al-.ippeoi tro', 30
Daries--Argued by Blackwell for appellants
aud by Higgins and Leland for appellesss
[ GHpdirick dc, vs., FoStsr-Error 10 10 Da-
ri"s-The question in this case is upon the con
structlon to be given to credit on :he back OF a
note. The note was for about 500. One credit
was for "li.51," and the other as follows: "E.-
ceived Oh the within note So The court below
held ths latter credit meant $50 Argued by
Higgins ior plaintiff in error and by Leland fuJ
plaintiff in error, aud under ADJUSTMENT;
I'ori, Implicated Oe. vs. 2iomaA-Error 10
Peor,a-lhis was an action OF ejevtment brought
by Nors, to recover possession of 10, in Peoria
Tor which he held tile under a patcntee The de.
PENDANT set up tax title, which prevailed below,
and NoriS brings the case up on error Argued
by Merrlnan aud Blackwell for plaintiff in error
and by Purple for defendant. We shall notice
/ the points at greater length when the decision of
the court is published. The case was very ably
argued on both sides
Cana! Trustees vs.. CITY Of Chicdgo-Error
}
decision Of the Cook county court, which render
ed Judgment against them for an assessment and
costs made Tor the purpose Cf opening a street.
| The city charter allows the authorities to open
new streets and assess the amount Of the expense
Of opening the same on the property benefited
! thereby. The proceedings were regular with the
exception of including the costs OF the proceed.
ing in the judgment, aud for that error alone the
/ Judgment is reversed. The court say that canal
lands are not exempt from the operation Of the
city charter that the assessment for the purpose
specified, is not tax within the meaning OF the
act exempting cuUal lands from tax. &c, and that
the lands haze passed from the state to the trust.
ees, and for this purpose the trustees occupy the
same position as any other purchaser from tie
state aud do not represent the state aud have no
rights as far this question is concerned, as the
representatives of the sovereignty. The ques-
ton is important i'll It's consequences, as affecting
the rights of incorporated towns over the canal
property. The cause was argued by l. n Ar.
nold for the trustees and By S S, Hayes for the
city The opinion of the court was delivered by
chief justice Treat
I IIcldoa VS.. Burch ct als-Error 10 Wiaae.
bdgO.-An action was brought by Weldon against
the defendants for an assault, and was tried in
1915. The evidence showed that some time in
lsia the plaintiff was assaulted in his OWL house,
taken out and roughly treated Witnesses were
called and asked some questions COR the pur-
pose Of identifying the defendants with the per.
petrators Of tue outragc. The witnesses declined
testifyiHg oR the ground that their testimony
might crinrhate themselves, and the court be-
low allowed their excuse, and the consequence
was jEdgmeat against the plaintiff, for costs
J lis court decided that the court below erred in
excusing the witnesses from testifying. The
criminal offence, if any, was barred by the stat
ute of limitations and the evidence sought to
be adduced was material to the issue, and not
introduced for the purpose Of impeachins the
to answer. Argued by Leland for plaintiff ia
error and by Marsh for defendant Judgment re.
versed and cause remanded; opinion by Chief
Justice Treat.
| lose ct ais vs.. HIrL-Error 10 Ldke.-ln an
action OF replevn the defendants only plea was
non eep,t Under this issue the jury found for
J the defendant, and the court ordered retorno
kdjendo. The plaintiffs make the point that the
plea OF non eepit admits the property to be in
the plaintiff, aud merely puts in issue the taking
The judgment for a return Of the property was
erroneous under that issue. Dickey and BIO x.
EFT for the plaintiffs Searls for defendant, Tn.
dor adyisement
}
The Roads,
Scarcelya day passes in which We are no, reques-
ted to "stir up the commissioners and op~s.ers Of
highnoys," Throughout, the several towns in the
county, concerning the bad state Of the roads but
thus far we have declined saying anything on the
SUBJECT, because we well knew that the weather