Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-02-28

1 Ioeo nr rpka haR Ind. e
'aS'' 'DiinAsiH'A' 'uaSes',t c..L L... y, s-.-t
y =. VAiIchnElD, reporter
aEENRAL DOCKET. 7o.i.
No a. The BeiefontaIue and Indiana Ra,Iroad,no,.
pany " Peter Bailey, Error 10 The District Oo,rt =,
Dark County. b. 'lD7 r''' "
BRMKxRHoFr j.. Held ssf -.
company for the killing of pain tIea bnraea h,
Of tie NEGLIGENCE Of The servants OF The comnsny IN bs
running aad management Of locomotive and Train, The
Killing who saw the horses when thew came nnon The
track who Is shown to be scouanted with be bs,naas
OF running railroad locomotiyes and trains ana hd ny
engaged In such buaineas for Ave veara h y,
tesy AZ an expert upon ouestiona IN resnact n, ~
msnseement Of iocomoyes and tIains and ~ ,o ~ e
opinion whether in view Of the distance between he
L was possible to avoid the injury compiaped Of
O. That on the trial Of such action where The issue IA
reuss 10 chsrse he iurvs that iboneh ,hs
the defendant may have been guilty AT psel0ence vat
the plaintiff must still fall n thew believe from the at
dsnce that due care had been used would moi have
prevented the injury. - '.1'
Judgment OF District Court and OF Conrt ~ con,o
Pleas reversed and cause rsmanded to Common Plea.
further proceedings. .t.... - /
No. %. Bsllefontane and Indiana R. r. Co, va ia
cob Fifer. ts.+ - Ia
preceding case w ~ p'''p''' '''''sa M 'n'
ror 10 District Court Of Harrison,
GHoLsoN J. Held
!. Upon question whsthsr pafol agreement had
of land The deed fro, 10 r. Sor ons ~ ,h
was offered as an item Of proof 10 show the
OF R. to convey the other tract This deed rented that
the was AZ 600 IN hand nsd n thsr ~
iersd to prove that in fact the was natural
love and afection Held that In view N the
for which the deed had been oed, n shouIS Ss
ed as an admission Of R., not conclusive but omen To-
PLANTATION or contradiction.
g. In an application for the benefit of the act for the
relief Of Occupying claimants the mere fact Of notice of
the claim whoh 10 successfully asserted is not conclu
sve evidence OF fraud and couson the part OF the
purchaser but he may show notwihstandinr sueh no
tIcs that he purchased in actual good faith and made
his n In the honest be lief that be Iand
his own. ,.l
Judgment in the action affirmed.
osmsnss act & reversed @ 'oo'r 'n' occupying
the District Court Of Greene cOunty. ~
surLrPYJ.
In an action for damages against defendants far
lawfully digging breaches In leyee construeted on the
bank Of river upon the lands Of another aboye the
lands Of the plaintiff and thereby causing The waters IN
how from the river and food and nure The lands OF he
plaintiff. Held ~
BY the plaintiff tending to maintain ths issue on hs
part, it was error 10 the Court 10 enter udgment ~
non suit and discharge the Jury from ndng An ths
| case. F-s =
Cd That sec. 32 Of the Code requires the decision In
such TO be upon the merits aud oontem plates
final Judgment upon a verdict. 30 7-7 :
3D.. In not appearing by the record that the plaintiff
ing such Judgment Of the plaintiff is entitled to
| q reversal Of such Judgment. =
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded to Common
Pleas.
No. IS. yeb King '. Zelotus Barrett.
| o.a.t M I.sS SV"i'"' Aeion CounV'