The Tiffin tribune. [volume] (Tiffin, Ohio) 1848-1859, 1858-12-03


RHrosrsp sxoiruyutr poa ms rtinuus.
4rH wErH--our last reportva up 70 Saturday
Nov 18th
MOSDAE Nov. i5th.--Judge seucy disposed Of
several motions, assigned a number Of cases, aud |
adjourned court til tomorrow morning
TUESDAY MonNsSa, Nov l6.--Judee Whitley |
on the bench. The first case Tor hearing was
that Of Strong vs.. Weiriek, Sheriff, an action Of
replcvin. Frederick Singer held note agaiustons
Thomas Strong, upon which he sued out an at.
tachment upon certain stock Of goods then in
the possession Of said Thomas Strong.
Jesse Strong the Plaintiff In this case claimed
a prior right to the goods thus levied upon. in
pursuance Of a sale Or conveyance to him previ
Gus to such levy Defendant claimed that the
conveyanee was fraudulent and asked that the
sals might be sot aside, and the goods apprOpria.
ted 70 the liquidation Of their claim. Jury afser
protraoted session rendered a verdict for the
Plaintiff
Q. x. Watson for Plaintiff, q W. p. Noble for
/ DESCENDANTS.
! WEDNESDAY MonNISo, Nov. l7th.--This morn
ing the big case Of the session came up for heag.
ing one which has ELECTED no little attention from
the public Of Seneca county on account Of its par
taking slightly of an ecclesiastical character The
case is thatof Michael Sulliv an, and others mem
bers Of st. Mary's Church, in this city Va. Mich
ael o. Sullivan Priest Of said church. The diff
Gully arose in determination on the part Of the
Priest aud certain members Of the church 10 va.
cate the house then in use, which had becomeo old
and dilapidated, and build a new one. To this
arrangement Plaintiffs objected However the
new house Of worship was erected, aud sometime
during .ho month Of March 1857, said Michael O.
Sullivan, aad certain members Of his church were
about to remove the furniture and fixtures from
the old building to the new one, when the Plain
tiffs, Michael Sullivan and others objected, and
lprocured the allowance Of an injunction, which
was granted by Judge Whitley, who was at the
time presiding, TO prevent said Michael OSuli.
van from removing said property On the 18th
Of November 1857, the Defendants in this case
as was alledged did contrary to the injunction Of
the court, remove from the old church buildings,
four stoves and appurtenances thereto, and pro-
ceeded TO erect them In the new church building
Hereupon the Plaintiffs in this case, by their
attorneys, moved the court for an order Of com.
mitment as to the Defendants, for breach Of the
injunction of the court. Upon this issue the case
had a hearing. The Plaintiffs claiming that in
removing the stoves DO, the Defendants were
guilty Of contempt and thereby had laid them
selves liable TO suffer he penalty for contempt Of
the order of Che court. The Defendant set up
first, that he Michael OSulliyan took no part
aud washed his hands" from all action in the
violation Of the said injunction. Second, that
Patrick II. Ryan, Michael Kellhcr, Peter Loh ohs-
way and George Kuhn, reno we'd the said stoves
and that he was in no wise Answerabe for their
actions
Tho trial occupied the entire day j. @.
Lee w. p. Noble counsel for the Plaintiffs, 4
c. X. Wntsdt, Stem & johnson for the Defend.
ants. The Plaintiffs procured evidence tending
to prove that the said Michael O'Sullvan, was
personally engaged N the violation Of said in.
junction, that as a Priest in the Roman Catholi,
Church he had entire control Of all the effects be
longing to the church in his parish. That over
the officers Of his church. of whom were part,
iocrcua--sssa-s--il ns,.u. Lvusway, Keilher ant
Kuhn he had supreme control TINT ms -os.l-s,
to them were law and gospel, his injunctions up
on them inviolable and that they acted as mer
agents in this ease. The Defense attempted t,
pruve the contrary.
During the argument Of this case, the power q
the Bishop aud the Priest over the church on,
its officers were fully and ably discussed Tn
case being submitted to the Court, he ordered, in
asmuoh as the articles mentioned in the motion
for commitment as being taken from the ol,
church by defendant contrary to the injunction
were not particularly named in the petition 70
said injunction, therefore he could not hold sale
defendants ahswerable for contempt; and they
were accordingly discharged.
THURSDAY. Nov. sth,-Case of James NJ. Pat
terson VS.. d. d. Ogden; action brought to rccov
er for personal services rendered to defendant by
Gibson & Moore, the account being conveyed b,
plaintiff. Defense claimed payment Of the nc
count. Judgment rendered for plaintiff in th,
sum of SIS. Leo for plaintiff and Noble for de
fendant
Several other cases of minor importance wer,
disposed Of, when Court adjourned till the 29tl
of November.