The Tiffin tribune. [volume] (Tiffin, Ohio) 1848-1859, 1858-11-12
common Pleus Oourt.--Oot. Torm.
RFroRrrD rEolrnvrly ron I'M Tnavsr.

t+NNN ~ iAi VI tN1 A'tNANA lN1oN'otAlA III
pearanee, yet evidences Of guilt ON his counte
nance. Griffith & Landon appeared for the state.
Hord Feobles & Brewer, for Defendant. Evi
deute went to show that between the Hotrs Of 6
o'clock =. NJ on the 22l and o'clock A.
VI. on The 93d Of July last, the shoe shop Of L. &
NJ Miller was entered, through window, and
two pair Of boots taken therefrom. About three
weeks thereafter one pair Of the boots was found
on the feet Of Defendant About the same time
the other pairwa found secreted in the basement
Of building upon which Defendant was work
ing at the time of said taking. In order to make
out q case Of Burglary" which is a Pcnitentary
of1nde, il was necessary 10 show the entering Of
Che building to be in the NIGHT TIME. But as
there were two hours of day light between 6 P.
NJ. aud dark, and day light and 6 A NJ. Of the
days before mentioned il raised the doubt rs 10
whether the crime was committed in the day or
night Therefore the Jury brought in verdict Of
Guilty of "Petit Larceny" Whereupon the
court ordered said Francis Warren to stand up
and to show reason, if any, why the Judgment Of
the court should not be pronounced against him.
The prisoner having nothing to say, the couft
pronounced the following sentence. "That you
make rcstitution to Millers Of $50, twice the val
uo of the 50 'ds stolen, that you pay the costs Of
this prosecution TINT you be confined in the dun
gcon Of the county Jail, and fed on bread and wa
ter only, for ten dayS."
This ease occupied the entire day, after which
the court adjourned till 8 o'clock Thursday NOR
Mug.
TnuRsDAy-The case Of Tomb, Huss & Co. vs.
/ W. r
ing. Civil action on Judgment Note. Defend
ants by their Attorney W. p Noble confessed
Judgment, and the court ordered said Judgment
Of SlO2a2 to beentored against said Defendonts
Stem Il johnson counsel for Plaintiffs.
/ Clinton Line Extension r, r. Co. vs. Jas. s
Sparks q others. Action 10 subject real estate 70
payment Of Judgment against Abraham s.tz
James S9itz & James Sparks. Defendant Sparks
I ti,imed that he was mere surety, that this was
well known to Judgment creditors, Yet that
Judgment creditor without consent Of Defendant
Sparks, and in consideration Of Az AGREEMENT Of
the principals to pay him 10 per cent. intereston
the judgment, grpnted 10 s-id principal debtors,
the further time Of one year for payment Where
by he Sparks claimed to be discharged from La
bility.
The proof showed that extension Of time, on
such agreement to pay interest at 10 perccn but
that it was done with Sparks consent. The court
held that this did not discharge Sparks. But
that all payments of interest above six per cent
should apply as payment upon the principal, as
there was no such stipulation to pay 10 per cent.
as required by statute. Hall for Plaintiffs. w.
P. & H. Noble for Defendants.
(1hoa q Rratf va VIM TTolhs oot;cv ~, ,,,,,,
isory note. Defendant by his attorneys Lee &
Brewer confessed Judgment, and the court order
ed that said alignment of $l946l be entered
against Defendant
The following indictments were entered on the
journal as "leit of Of the Docket"
State of Ohio vs.. John Wilhelm, charge, Gun
lawfully selling liquor"
statcofohioys Deitrick osterholt, charge, "un.
lawfully selling liquor"
State Of Ohio vs.. Deitrick Osterholt, charge
''unlawfully keeping house of gaming"
/ State Of Ohio vs. John Fox charge "Bashrdy."
state OF Ohio vs. John Doyle, charge. Assault
with intent 10 kill"
satoof Ohio VS.. Chester Hointer, charge, "Rob-
cry"
In case Of State vs., J. P. Wise the Prosecuting
attorney entered NoLLE PRosEQUI (not proseeu-
tod)
In the case of State vs., Lucius Smith, charge,
Assault Battery on one Montgomery, Smith
plead guilty, and was fined by the court IS and
cost
Benz. Hartley VS.. Catharine Stephens 4 Others
Action on Promissory note. Pillars for Plaintiff
Noble for Defendants. Judgment of sl6653 rem
dered against Defendants
FRDAY-The case of the State of Ohio vs. John
F. H. staehle, charge Shooting at with in
tent to kill, ," came up for hearing and occupied
the entire day This case originated at Green
Springs, in an attempt by officer Nighswauder
TO arrest the Defendant Itappeared in evidence
that on the night Of August 24th The officer nam
ed above went to the residence Of the Defendant
TO arrest him on a charge Of Petit Larceny The
doors being fastened, and admission refused, said
officer forced an enterance, at which time Defen-
dant threatened TO shoot him, and Immediately
discharged gun in the hearing of said officer
Defendant claimed to be ignorant Of the officer
mission that he intended 10 treat him as he would
any one who would break open his house at night
That he seized his gun for this purpose, when
his son desiring to interfere tobk hold Of the gun,
and in the scuflle discharged II, which discharge
was accidental. The State failing TO make out
else in the estimation Of the jury verdict Of not
Guilty was returned and the Defendant discharg-
ed, Griffith a Hord for the State. Lee Noble
for the Defendant.
During the entire day, some one, either among
: the gentlemen Of the jury" gentlemen Of the
bar, or gentlemen spectators. failed not, to blow
forth. most Justify from his physical bellows, the
sweet aid well defined odors arising from onions
and whisksyj IN an advanced state Of decomposi-