Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1858-07-07
Can't Frnceedinps.

Court Proceedings.
A part of the doin9s of the Court o
Common Pleas were crowded oui las
week; we notice, now only such cases a
seem to be of interest TO our readers.
Stale of Ohio vs.. Alvin and Alber
Tidd-Grand Larceny. Indictment,
were found against these defendants, TO.
gether with Charles Curtis and Thomp.
son Crawford, for entering a store in Nee
ca, on the night of April 18th, 1858, and
stealing goods 10 the amount of $500
Curtis and Crawford have not yet been
arrested. The verdict of the jury, res
,pecting the TidJs. was, guilty. The
counsel for the prisoners moved for q new
trial, On the grounds, lst. That the YER
dict was contrary 10 evidence. 2i. That
evidence was allowed 10 90 TO the jury
after they retired, which was net offered
as evidence during he trial; that a map
If the S ate of Ohio and Trumbull county
was allowed 10 g. TO the jury, which was
not offered as evidence on the trial; that
the jury might have been influenced by
these maps TO render a verdict of guilty.
An affidavit of one Of Inc jurymen was
offered by the State, that the map was
only in the jury-room ten minutes, and
that the jury were not Influenced by the
maps. The Court overruled the motion
for a new trial, although the Court be-
lievcd that the introduction of the maps
10 The jury, after they had retired, was
highly. improper. The testimony in the
case was purely circumstantial. The
conduct Of the prisoners, when The eff
cers.went to arrest them. was 20: the con-
duet eff innocent persons; they came cut
armed with clubs TO resist the officers
The alibi attempted 10. be proven on The
trial, was clearly fabricated; That the
prisoners were in bed al lO4 P. NJ, the
night the larceny was committed; the les
iimony 10 establish the alibi was ruled out
by the jury, and the evidence of The mo-
,,her and daughter was impeached. Be
FIRE the sentence was given, The prisoners
declared they were innocent. The sen
.tencc of The Court wss, mai they should
.screate five years in the Penitenliary, at
hari labor.
MATRIMONIAL AFFAIRs.-The Court
also, were busy courting in matrimonial
affairs. Marriage relations appear to be
getting slightly loose in Old Trumhu!l.-
The disunionists Ia the nuptial state,
came up praying for a dissolution of the
bonds of matrimony. The Court in sew
,eral cases, united The Gordian knot, and
cut asunder the silken thread Of wedlock,
much 10 the relief of the petitioners.
MARY Atwood VS.. Collins Atwood-Di-
vorcc and Alimony. This case occupied
more time and awakened more interest
in The neighborhood of the residence OF
the parties, and created more excitement
in the Court room, than any other civil
case, yet tried. The examination Of wit
pesses was entered upon, Saturday after
noon, 18th, and continued until lime for
adjournment, Monday evening. Upwards
of seventy five witnesses were in attend
ance. The evidence elicited d, WIS exceed !
,ingly conflicting, and exhibited a state Of
matrimonial life calculated 20 discourage
the sale of licenses. The parties are in
middle life, and residents OF Johnston; the
plaintiff a second wife, and The defendant
surrounded by a family of children by a
former wife. Messrs. Curtis, Cox and
futile, appeared for The plaintiff, and r.
w. Ratliff and Jno. Hutchins, Esqs., for
the defendant. Divorce granted on ground
of extreme cfuelty-alimony in the sum
of 1925, and plaintiff 10 have control Of
three children, the fruit Of said marriage.
Nancy Gilmore VS.. James Gilmore
Divorce and A!imony. Divorce granted
on ground of extreme cruelty of husband.
Curtis & Smith for plaintiff. futile q
Stull- and Barnes for defendant.
Sally. Paxman vs.. Richard Paxman-
Divorce. Divorce granted on The ground
of wilful absence Of husband for more
than three years-custodv of children 10
wife; costs for defendant TO settle. L.
sutIifF for plaintiff.
Sarah WILLIAMS vs.. Benj4min Williams
Divorce which was granted on ground
of habitual drunkenness; she 10 have abb
soluie control of all her real and personal
properly, and custody of her children :
Fuller for plaintiff. Curtis Il Smith for
defendant.
Mary ]. Mott vs.. Richard Mor-DI-
vosce and Alimony. Divorce granted on
the sEound of wffu! absence Of husband
for more Than ft,oee years prior TO filing
Curtis & Saith for Plaintiff.
Harriet Jones VS.. Asa Jones-Alimo-
ny. Petition dismissed at cost of peii- I
.Hu:chiEs, Cox 81 RIlif for