The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-05-05
L A w REPORT
HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT coupr

4 - "A w LO II L ~ III Il
HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
| n ClsEs pEcIDEo. : Miles Greenwood VS.. Francis
The plaintiff here was the defendant boioWr rfSs TSa
wood and tho verdict below was Tor the pant, Sn5
the Judge before whom the was tried, overrnIed
upon was tho verdict was not sustained By IN
syidcnce Held that the Court had no power to re-
| Judgment affirmed.
| SAME We. DuERsTocE. E.-.opinion by Judge Dickson
under the law Of lsl5 before the Code went into Oh
3rati9n,) which permitted a higher Court to review
INC decision OF lower ono on q question Of fact
This Court was now called on TO say whether the YER
o dGt oelow for Duorstockl was sustained by the evil
9ence. The action was brought by father for ssrv
res reIqered by his SON. minor, TO Miles Green
wTor: SSe:h ne testlned that he made an arrangement
whereby TO work &c certain compensation per
week, with an additional compensation Of fifty cen
ne received the xed compensation, and having sai5
.ne tne agreed upon, was entitled TO the extra fifty
was given that the boy was to remain until he was
twenty -one years Of age and II not, not to re-.
oeInVe tne, audltlonAl payment.
The rule Of law Is that verdict obtained in lower
court VIII not be reversed unless the Court IA
Satisned mat the jury made mistake. This wns not
he case here; although II might be II the Court had
@ tn9 eNamln9tion OF the question, they might have
tands the majority Of the Judges were in favor Of
sustaining the finding. y
evidence was conclusive that the agreemeftWas thai
the boy was TO remain until he was twenty-one years
have been set aside and new trial granted
Judge Carter was Of opinion that the verdict was
FAnR,IL. VS., RAnpLE.-Oplnion by Judge Cartor
petition n error t. the Common Pleas on q Jude
cple announced in one of the above cases where il
was & 1&eclaed, & undera ruling of the Supreme Court
might be remarked that were they permitted 10 rc.
sposss s Scs o ms they would not be
Pleas. "a '''' 'o'i"ioh
Judgment affirmed.
WILSON'S HEIRS WTfenNta 49,.
TE TEES BrnkerhG delivered the opinion
~ aIt0n wss pr9peht b the heirs Of the deceden
up mere. mere by appeal from the Common Pleas. The
the bill IN chancery, and among the latter The rr
o%ana % DIVERSITY one Of the legatees named in the
Court but as to- tho Urbana tniyersity, the orep
MAD made return OF mot guilty.; but after the expira
issued to the county of Champagne, and service was
FOR the iirst time obtained against the University
which then appeared in the Common Pleas and filed
The first plea sot up that the suit having been in
ought to have been in accordance with the practice
OF these Courts instead Of the old forms in cancery
service had until after two years from tbs
81 the gr26ate Of the will. The questions arising on
the snihcency OF these pleas was submitted wtRou
the filing of any formal demurrer.
Held as to the first objection that the proceeding
5houlu nave Deen under the Probate Court practice
instead OF under the old forms in chanceryi the Su
preme court 6th Ohio Repors) had this question un.
difference and subject to the election or choco OF The
Pa me hrst plea, therefore, set up good dc.
tense in bar as against the University.
AS to the second plea the sufficoncy of il depend
fh o 'ae S 10 % Sp pc given to the 18th section Of
person interested shall within two years after pro
probate shall be for ever binding save TO infants
etc 1t was clear to the majority of the Court thst
not come within the 70 terms ge set 6 R in this plea d
statute because, here party interested did not an
and in proper form madc the University defenSaml
anu anu hHu process Issued against it, it was apparent
that he University did not bring itself within this
actsof Limitation; The question was whether il was
10 De extended by construction in its favor. The
equities of parties, but had its foundation soieIv o
considerations of public policy and with a view t.,
tempt on The part Of Courts IS to eSsSd Sm s any at
10y construction. The plea was not bar to this
The Court suggested to the contestants the propri
ETY. OF Ming demurrer to these pleas TO bring The
the Supreme Court if they Should think proper ~ ~
take the question there. Leave was given for the
down for hearing on the facts ' 'e
J: Il. Hetrick vs.. Jesse P. Wilson. Judge Dickson
gave the opinion. This petition in error 10 the
Common Pleas. Held that the bringing Of the writ
OF error was equivalent ia exception made at the time
order at subsequent term opening up a Judgment
OF preceding term was an order affecting the sub
stantlal rights OF the party made in summary pro
Geeding after judgments and therefore writ Of error
would lie TO IL Case remanded to court below fot
Exparte Walsh 4 Exparto johnson. Judge Brink
% dWS S 2pbncalGns We're made to the Court foI
j. IT, Walsh, the other on behalf of Thomas John.
son, A copy of the mittimus in each case sceomna
mes the application and shows that the parties wer
committed from the Police Court, and sentenced L.
gang lava local law, applicable to Hamilton County
ony-passod prior to the present Constitution OF the
stare ana remaining unrepcaed by any action of the
Legislature. N
The ground on which the applications are based I,
the supposed repeal by Implication, of this local law
by the present Constitution. SOW
The Court was of opinion that the question could
ne tested satisfactorily only by writ of error so thai
the case could 60 to the Supreme Court but thai
parties might not be put to unnecessary expense and
Tue courts OF TINS county to unnecessary trouble II
might De well to state that the qGeson had been dis.
cussed by the Supreme Court in their consultation
room, ana according TO his (Judge 81 recollection
lhe unanimous opinion was Though there was no
formal adudcationl that the clause of the Censtitu.
tlon relied upon-pamey, that all laws of a general
mature snail have uniform operation throughout
me State-must be construed, and will be construed
when IT becomes necessary TO pass upon it, as pros
pectve In Its operation, By giving that construction
pu6llc convenience would in way be affected: bur
py noldng II retrospective il would operate to repea
oy implication multitude of laws at the time in
questions, and affect inuriously the rights Of ind
Viouas ana the public this local tax was oppres-
sive or impotic the remedy was by application 10
the Legislature The allowance for the wrts Of error
was refused. '
Aylward vs. Aylward. Judge Trlnkerhon The
petition in the Common Pleas was by the wife for
allmony, ana on hearing IL dismissed. An an
peal was taken to this Court. The question arises
whether case of this kind is appealable After
auNertng 70 tho statutes, the Court sustained tho
motion to dismiss the appeal.
WRITs OF ERROR IN THE HOMICIDE G. OAsEs-The haar
ing upon the writs OF error granted in the cases OF
James Burns, Chas. Cook and William Setter was
specially set-that OF Burns for Saturday next, and