The penny press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1859-1860, 1859-10-24
LAW REPORT.
HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.

JOHN s. GANo AND THB MALsHALsHIP.--Tht
State of Ohio vs.: John Gano.-This day CSatur
day) was fixed for the purpose Of considering th,
Questi 40 10 whether this should stand upOi
order of reservation for the Supreme Court or b,
set for hearing during the present term OF the Dis
trict Court.
Mr. Milchel (who has been just retained Id th,
case to take the place of Judge Gholson behalf o
tho respondent urged that it was proper case to b'
pied understood that there distinct agreemen
to reserve III and that no great interests would suf
The opposite counsel, in pressing his motion for
hearing, had relied principally the assu hptior
that enormous Sums Of money, in the shape Of fees
were being drawn daily by Mr Gano; but tho fac
e. at durin8 the 1--WE months and half that Mr.
had exercised the duties of the ofce Of Marshal th
Denses, (accrung In the employment of five deputies,
the city havng refused to hand over TO him that pro
lion Of the eniolunenis OF the office for which sh
was liable Now, what were the great public utter
ests at stake upon this question ofareservaton? Mr.
Robinson, who tgmes on the record as substantial
plAintf, was not interested lie would not be en-
titled To charge fees but upon sustaining his CLAIM
Council would have to ok The, city, il any party
was the one interested and, as he UNDERSTOOD, tn
city Solicitor did not press the case.
Mr.. Hayes-Ihe city is not in this case.
MIR GrOesbeCk, without dsputiDg the figures gyeI
by MIR. Mitchell as to the actual fees paid, remarked
that Mr. GaDo was acculnulatng large claims for hi
services as Marshal. If his tents were willing HI
hal no Digestion to re,eryatun OF the case, buC h
had never agreed to any. He thought, however, thu
bstter course would be to fix for the hearing
Mr Hayes, In reply to the allnsion made to him b,
Mr.. Mitchell, thought 1t proper to say that he wa
not here to resist or press the case because the W
WAS not party. Undoubtedly, however, The Oh!
WAS interested in the question rs 70 whether Mr
Gano was legally Marshal or not and it was desirable
soon as possible. But, he not quite satisfied tina
heai Ing OF the case now woua hasten the final de
termiuation. 1nno event would the Uity Of Lincin
natl regard decision IN his case that Mr.. Gano wa
Marshal as binding on her.
Judge Matthews (who appeared on the same sid
with slr GrUesbeck) remarked that they were moi 4
assume that Whatever wa, the case should be cidtt
here the party fi would take writ of errOrthe
may not But whether or not, i was no reason VIII
this Court should not determine the in its prop
order; particularly thi. esuit would take plal
that ii the ourt of opinion that the law abolish
ing the Office OF Marshal constitutional and tha
Mr.. Gano WIS al usurper, he would then have t,
con est the question not ~ MI incumbent of the Office
whereas, II the case WAS reserved, he would contnu'
III Office, and receive the fees
After some further remarks were made by counsel
Judge Malon inmateJ that on Monday the CUur
would determine whether they would set the case fol
hearing.
DIG ,SIoEs. Este Va. Jenpifer and others Judg,
Di kson delivered the opinion Of the Court Tn
orttinel case was bill in Chaucery to ferecose
mortgage, and it came mp now on sl5tion to distib
vie proc eds OF SALE on question OF priority Of liens
holding lien, and the latter mortgage The mali
question was whether judgment AGAINST purchaser
at sherhs sale is lieu on the property real estate
purchased, after the pnrc base, aud before the deed
delivered ty the sheriff 10 the purchaser The Cour
held hat It was not and decided in favor Of Jenni
ulOTtgdRe, WHICH went tue reCOTl aIttT tnt
deed was delivered to the purchaser by the Sheriff
| and before levy was made on Judge Estes judg
ment.
Mills for Este; Judge 1ilden on the other side
Hinkle & Guiid and others vs. @. g. Shane. A pc
ttion In error to the ud gment ofthe Common Pleas
reversing on order of tho Probate Judge (Burgoyne
In proceedings in execution.
u. McCabe ys. Harper Il Crane. Judge Ghoson do
lVered the opinion Of the Court holding that the,
were not that there was any error and refus
ing to reverse he deci.iun.
sleal h vs.. Roberis and others. Judge MallOn de
lvered heightened opinion In thiscase, holding tina
J. Hoberts, rem, took certain conveyance with
knowledge of Slraths mortgage, In trust, subjsc
TO lien, and that his devsees and representative
niust hold the property subject to mortgage