M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-03-05
LEGAL NOTICE
THE STATE OF FoHIoVINToRCoUNTY,
lNCouRT oFCoMM0N PLEAS.

TIE STATE OF OHlOVlNTONCOUN
lNCouRT oFCoNMoN PLEAS.
George Barnet, Pltf.l
vs. Civil action
Jossph TS,1l% Hsnen Srss' and Denp.I Petition
George W. Johrston.l
T0SEPH HANEN, Of Washington county in
81 the State OF Pennsyl will take notice,
that George Barnet, OF the County of Vintoa, IN
the State Of Ohio, did, on the 18th of February
1868, file his Petition, in the Clerks office, of the
aforesaid Court of Common Please, within and
for said Yinton county, against said Joseph
Hanen, William Bray and George W. Johnston
as partners trading under the firm, name of Ha-
men, Bray &Co., defcndents setting forth among
other things;
First. That about the 9th. day of December
1862, the said defendants were dealers in sheen.
that they brought them into the neiphborhood
OF the plaintiff, in Harrison Tp., iE said vim
ton county, That they offered for sale part of
said sheep to plaintiff, that the said Bray and
Llanen, were present, and that said defendonts
by said Bray and Henen, represented 10 the
plaintiff that said sheep were thorough bred
Spanish sheep, brought directly from Washing.
ton county Pennsylvania lhSt the grown sheep
OF the flock were worth twenty dollars per head
that they were of the best quality of sheen
known, that they would shear from six to ten
lbs of wool annually, that some of them bad
yielded ten lbs. Of wool the previous spring
the growth Of a single year, as said Hanen and
Bray, personally knew. That they we're sound
free from disease &c. That plaintiff was ipnor-
ant of the bred, quality, soundness' age and
condition Of said sheep, and relied wholly upon
the representations Of Che said Bray aud llanen.
That plaintiff agreed to buy fifty head ofsaid
sheep, and agreed to pay, 10 the said Hanen,
Bray q 20. and gave his obligations 'herefor.
four hundred lbs of wool per anlum on the lst
day of July in each of the years 1868, 1854, 1888
1866 and 1867. That if plaintiff became uissat-
isted that said deiendents were to take back
said sheep and cancel his said five obligations
given as aforesaid, that the first of said Obliga-
Vi ons was drawn for 400 lbs of wool due july
lst 1859, but that tho aforesaid obligations were
frauduently drawn for 47O lbs. of wool each,
instead Of 400 lbs. as agreed upon.
That all of said representations as to breed,
quality, stock, yield, value and soundness of
sheep were false and fraudulent. and contrived
to cheat and defraud the plaintiff, and that de-
iendents well knew the same TO be false and
fraudulent, that said sheep were not spanish,
would not shear, from six to ten lbs of wool an
ually, were not sound sc. That paintiff reques-
ted defendents to take back said sheep and can
eel said obligations sc.
That said llanen, is resident of the State of
Pcnnsylvania, that, said bligations are in DOS
session ofsaid Bray, that said plaintiff has been
and is at the eexpence ofkeepine said sheep ut u
cost ofnot less then seventy-hvG cts. per day sc.
Second. That the said defendants at the
same time and place, further intending to cheat
and delraud the plaintiff under like false and
fraudulent representations, rs to breed stock,
value, annual yield Of wool, etc. procured the
plaintiff to enterinto contract TO keep fifty
head Of said sheep for the perioed of Eve year,,
on shares, of same breed and quality, that the
same were TO be not over three years of age, a
like number at the end of the term to be return-
cd TO detendents, and besides plaintiff in the
mean time was to deliver to defendants on the
lst day of July 1868, one hundred lbs of wool, on
the lst day Of July 1854, two hundred lbs of
wool, on the lst day Of July 1858, one hundred
and fifty lbs of wool, on the lst day of July 1865
one hundred and fifty lbs wool; and on the 1t
day OfJuly 1857, one hundred and fifty lbs of
wool. Thrift the plaintiff became dissatisfied
saiG detendents were to recind raid contract,
that plaintiff was ignorant as to quality, breed
vaue,yielG and sOundnesS, of said sheep, received
the same, and gave his obligations for the de-
livery OF said wool to defendants, at times an
in amounts us sta ed, that the representations
OF ietendents were false and fraudulent as they
knew, that sheep were unsound, would not yield
wool US representation etc. that plaintiff sent q
messenger 10 said Bray requesting him to take
back ssid sheep, and deIivor up aforesaid obliga-
tions to the said plaintiff, that said Bray, relus-
cd 50 to do, that said obligations are still in the
hands ofsaid Bray, that the keeping ofsaid fifty
head OF sheep is worths seventy five cts per day
from the 9th day Of December 1862, which said
petition cOutains Prayer.
That the said deiendents and each of them
may be enjoned from assigning transferring or
in amy manner disposeing Of said obligations or
any or either of them, that on the final hearing
of this cause the Court may order and decree
that both Of said contracts may be cancelled
and declared of no effect, that the defendents
muy be compelled to deliver Il p all of aforesaid
obligations, to take oack both said lots of sheep
and pay the plaintiff for keeping same, not less
than seventy-five cts per day, for eaen of sal d
lots of sheep, that tho plaintiff be discharged
from all the obligations Of said contracts, and
that he be restored to all he hasl lost by reason
thereof, and such other relief Us may be accord
ing Ito equity
And said dofendents will take notice that an
injunction has been allowed in this cause.
McClintick, Il Smith GEORGE BARNET,
Bratton, att'ys for Pltff. b.26th-6s-6w.