The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-05-23
Law REPORT-
HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT

HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
CAsFs DECIDED. -Hop pkinsys. stsgg 3 shays 4 suit
by stage shays OF this city, on L6Vc Martin. of
rrHsa hScepien ty Ihsm, 9nd tEesigrt 70 the
mud claims the statutory dams ges Of six par cent
The onl, question In the cas whether The pRrty
was eitied to the statutory damages. Judge Brink
erhon delivered the opinpn aud held, that under the
PROVISIONS OF statute the party WINS entitled TO the
Judge 1Iallon dissented.
The state Bank Of 0hioys. Lincbacli. The petition
closure q a mortgdge and sale Of premises In an.
announcing the opinion, Judge BrinkerhOfl said tho
Iayed until the settlement of remote Controversies
between other PARTIES Plaintiff might take his order
Isaac May VS.. Maria Buckingham Judge Brinkcr.
non also gave the opinion In this cause. The action
and Misrepresentation IN the sale Of horse, aud
Judgment was rendered against the defendant for
Pleas and the Judgment WAS there afYrmed. snd "a
peilton In error was then fled bringing the case to
The STror rSrsg tne J4hgmeht 81 a,rmsnse
the Keep OF the horso, between tho time Of com
Judgment in the justices Court was allowed This
n%onrt % thonght there was error in this ruling, and
termned with reference to their st aus at the date of
tne commencement of the action. The judgment
would therefore be reversed "a to that Item and
ahrmod as to the balance. The costs to be equally
divided.
MARY Ann Duhme vs.. Herman DuLme. motion
TO dismiss an appeal pro nntO argued the previous
day. IN disPosing OF tho motion, Judge Brinkerhon
remarked that the sympathies manifested for women
by the Common Pleas Judges manifesty gavo rise to
the statute providing for appeals in where the
allmony allowed towomen against the estates oftheir
husbands appeared to he excessive. He recollected
one case in which the amiable sympathy and gal.
snTy OF the Judges led them to make very singu
yorce from her husband, with whom she had lived
she greater % portion Of her life and BY whom she had
T. family OIL chlldren, then grown men and women.
The property Of the old gentleman consisted of an
soecEsS oh5 Earn bon OF G9S O hundred and sixty
creed divorce aud gave the entire farm in fee sim
PIE, With sii the stock, to the old woman leaving
morning 10 the husband but horse, with saddle and
bride and $500 cash. In the present the motion
to dismiss the appeal would be overruled
- MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE CASE OF CHARLES
Cook AND WILLIAM SITTER, now IN THB Pennies
TIARY UPON CONVICTION or MURDER IN rHE SECOND
two cases should be heard together tho points relied
upon In each being mostly the same.
Mr., Logan Cot counsel in each easel first addressed
tho Court and occupied the forenoon. He dwelt at
great Length urDn thse points in the testimony ohe
was direct conflict, and upon which las he conened
the State had protected lie whole theory Of purpose
malice and conspiracy against these petitioners. II,
said tho witnesses should not have been believed
that they would not have been had they not been Dol
stored up and strengthened by the remarks of tht
Court on tho subject Of the impeachment of wit
nesses., He also claimed testimony was improperly
Tho argument of Judge Johnston was submitted in
Judge Matthews next addressed tho Court on be-
han Of Cook. He urged that the Judgment Of the
Common Pleas should be reversed. First because
pleas showing that the Grand Jury who returned tb,
Dill was not legally constituted
Second, because the Court permitted tho Prose
cutting Attorney perenptory 70 chaienge QUO of tTc
Jurors summoned 70 try the case, after hc had been
Third because the Court erred in various ruling,
In respect to tho admission and exclusion Of tosii
mony.
Fourth, that the Court erred in charging the iur,
that defendant was not entitled to avail himself
the plea OF sef-defense, because he had commenced
the difficulty.
Fifth, tho Court erred in charging tho jury tha
Setter (who was offered witness for defense) wa
an accomplice, and therefore not to lie believed with
cut corroboration; aud that Swift was in the sam
position ifthe jury should be OF opiu!on that he wa
| In fact au accOmplice
Sixth, that from the whole testimony the verdc
and Judgment were wrong, there WAS no proof &
| in the second degree.
Messrs Gaines and Kerr were present They di
not Offer any argument on behalf of the Slate bn
DIRECTED the attention of the Court to several au