Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1857-11-25
Court Of Common Pleas.

Stark county, took his place. Judge H.
is determined te dispose of all business
prepared for trial, and has been holding
late evening sessions nearly every night
since his return, keeping lawyers and
juiies al work at the top of their speed.
A ccartissraiirer a slow coach at best,
and it will probably require most if rot
all Of the present week to run through
the list Of cases.
We ssppenl a list of such cases as
seem to US to be of sufficient general in
terest to warrant notice.
Bidwell d Bidwell VS. Mccartney &
Hu,chins: Trial to court. Judgment for
plfs. s83,l5 Hutchins & Curtis for plff.
F. Z. Hutchins for defts.
John Twiss VS. J. II. Kibbee. Ve.-
dict for plf. sI10,67. Hutehins, Cox
& Ratlif fer plf; Tu;tle & Burnett for
def.
John Crowell VS. Administrator of G.
w. Quigley. Verdict for plf. s13i,5I.
Curtis 1 Tuttie for plf; Hutchins, Cox
i Rs,iif for def.
G. c. Holcomb VS. Ralza Clark, Ad-
illustrator CT Ralza A. Clark. Verdict
for def. Curtis & Jones for plf. Sutliff
d futile for deft
Charles Woodruff VS. Horace Burt
Verdict for def. Sutliff & futile for plf.
Jones d Curtis for deft.
James w. Kerney vs. Admr. of John
Kerney. In this case the plaintiff, while
a minor, received from his father, as
Guardian. between two or three hundred
dollars to enable him 10 60 to California
in 1852. Not having made his evertast-
ing ''fortin" in tho land of gold. James
seturns pleads the baby act, and the jury
give him a verdict for 1851, Is. Sullif
& Tatlle for plf. Huichins. Cox d Rat
lift for defendant.
George William VS. Stephen Burnett.
This vas a suit in repleYin, the property
in controversy being the horse which
was stolen from the plaintiff some three
years age, as will be reccollected, flor
which VIM. P. Van Gorder is now en-
loving Incarceration in the penitentiary
Judgment for plf. for the horse, and
nominal damages of six cents. Asper
far plff. Curtis for def.
Township of Hartford We Edwin
Bennett. In this ease the defendant had
been elected Constable and Supervisor
at Il 9 same election. He declined the
former Office and accepted the latter
Suit was brought to recover Sc, the stat
utoiy penalty for refusing to serve as
constable. Judgment for plff. for that
u Jones for plf. U. II. Hutchins
for def
Leander J. Randall VS. lyman P. An
drews. Verdict for deft. on his counter
claim for thirty three cents. Asper for
plff. Hutchins, Cox & Ratlif for defen-
dant.
Guardian Of Geo. H. Birnes VS. Elk
ecutor of Judson J.. Barnes. Suit
brought by plaintiff TO set aside The u
cupatiye will Of Judson J. Barnes, late
of Gustavus. deceased. Verdict for de-
frndant. the jury refusing 10 set aside
the will. Plaintiff appealed. Hutchins.
Cox & Ratlif for plff. SuIliff d. futile
for def.
Gage, Sloane IL Daten VS. j. II. Kib
bee l. Executor of John S. Kibbee.-I
The only question in this case was
whether the estate of John S. Kibbee
was chargable with a bill of goods
bought BY j. H. Kibbee after the dis
solution of the firm of James H. Kibbee
d. Co., and inadvertently charged TO The
late firm, instead of TO j.. II. Kibbee
personally. Defendant proved that &C
tnal knowledge Of the dissolution had
been received by the salesman of whom
Kftbee bought the goods Judgment
sgsins, ]. H. Kibbee only s579. co.
A. R. rockingham Il Co. VS. same
defendants. Suit OF the same nature as
the above. In this case, deft. did not
.how that plf.. had. knowledge of the
dissolution, and as J. IL. K;bbee had
made frequent purchases 10 the name
of the firm, the Court held that publish !
ing the notice Of dissolution in the pa
p~rs here was not suficie-t notice TO
plffs. and rendered judgment against
both defendants for the amount of the
goods purchased. ss46. SIS. Hutchirs.
Oox d Ratlif for Pills. Fuller and Sut
lift & futile for defendants.
Ira L. Fuller vs.. Joseph Bedford ct.
al. Verdict for pl'fs. for 1856. So
IIutchins and Fuller for pl'fs; McLain
and Curtis d Smith for defendants.
John Lewis VS. Cleveland g. Mahon-
ing Railroad Company. Plaintiff a res
jhent of, and a keeper of a public house
20 West Warren, ciaimed $1,000 Tor
damage sustained by reason OF defend
ants running their road at the rear OF his
premises. Verdict for plaintiff. for sse9.
Both parties appealed. Orchard and
curiiss & Smith for plaintiff; Hitch cock
and Su.liff & Tuttle for defendants.
Thomas johnson vs.. j. W. Dc James
McCleery. Suit brought to recover for
certain lbellous and indecent publics-
tons. alledged to have issued and circu
lated by defendants; also, the plaintiff
charges defendants with having procur'
ed the publicsiiop, in the Chronicle"
- FL. TIL