, 1860-04-05
THE COURTS,
Verdict fog Defendants.


The trial Of the great North Side Sand Bar
ease. or rather the contest to the title to the
valuable accretions on the Lake shore, north Of
the pier, which hns been on trial in the Z. S.
District Cour, in this city, for the past two
weeks, came to conclusion Yesterday.
It is entitled ". s. Johnston rs. Vim. Jones
md 5. Marsh, Ejectment. and the property di.
rectly aud INDIRECTLY at issue is valued ut over
laf million dolla:s. The jury went out at one
O'Clock, p. ~, and brought in, after 6ve hours
in tic jury room, their verdict for the defend
ants. This is the fourth trial Of the case, as we
stuted in cur former reference to it. The qaes-
ton submitted 10 the jury in this latter hear
ing was whether the plaintiff had water line
on thelake, on Oct. eand, 1866, the date Of his
deed.
1t WILDE taken to the Supreme Court nhith-
er it would hare gone in either event, since a
verdict for the plaintiff would have given hin,
only portion, under the rule Of disisiou laid
down by the Supreme Court. He now goes 10
the Supreme Court with this verdict and also
for u revision Of the rule Of division.
THIS important trixl has engaged the services
OF most distinguished array of counsel, 3lessrs.
j, S. Morris, !. y. Arnold, and John i. Wells
representing the PlainliE, and Measrs. Abra-
ham Lincoln, S. VI. Fuller, Van Higgins AID
John Van Arman, appearing for the defence.
In the clossncsz with which it has been contest
ed and the eminent ability displayed, it is one
Of the most notable trials in the annals Of our
courts. The larger share Of the property re-
presented by the defendants IS held By stock
company, which contemp1ates extensive i'm
proyements in that section Of the city, tie
character and prominence Of which has changed
much since The " Sands " were the Five Points
aad Cow Bay Of Chicago.
Cock CocSTr C1a1r1r Cocar.-!S1anfy e..
Slgnly-Divorce case.
As VIC dropped into lie Circuit Court Of Cook
Comfy yesterday We found tue case Of Bridget
sharlv $50 ca led) rs. Francis Shauly again on
trial. It will be remembered re that this case was
commenced in 1864, aud was pending in the
Court till t1ial was had lust spring, whicl. re-
suited in a verdict for The complainant. THIS
verdict was SO ra!pably uujust and so against
the evidence, that on motion the Court set the
verdict aside and ordered q rew trial, which new
trial was had yesterday, Hon. 3. S. Morris ap-
peariDg for complainant, and c. 4. Gregory for
defendant. This time the jury found verdict
for the defendant. twill be remembered from
our account at this case last spring that the
only issue in the case WAS whether the defend
aas had ever married the complainant or not.
The defendants sworn answer denying mar1i-
asc-1he case being brought for divorce and
a:imony money. On this verdict decree WIS
rendered in lavcr Of the defendant, Francis
Shanly, and the complainant ordered to pug tie
cos.s Of suit. So
Mr. Shan1E is respectable aud thrifty citizen
Of Chicago and an old aud well known resident.
This Termination Of case pending through a
period Of I've years, and SO peculiar in tnature,
must be gratifying 10 him aud his friends, aud
completely exonerates him from ths charges
made ia the cu1nplainant's bill.
1tlconpEn's CorEr.-In the Recorders Court
yesterday David yinney and Joshua Elder were
On trial, ch,recd with burglary The case rc-
suited in their conviction. Tin1ey getting a
term Of two years ard hall, aud Elder two
years.
Owing to the 1ndispositioa Of Recorder vii
s1u tic Court adjourned to r. H. to-lay.