M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-03-19
LEGAL NOTICE.


THE STATE OF oVINTON COUNTY,
lNCoURT oFCoMMoNPLEAS.
George Barnet, Pltf1
VI Civil action
William Bray,
Joseph Hanen and Deft4. Petition
George W. Johrston.l
T0SEPH HANEN, of Washington county In
D the State Of Pennsylvania, win take notice,
that George Barnet, OF the County Of Yintoa, in
the State Of Ohio, did, on the 18th ofFeburary
1868, te bis Petition, in the Clerks oice, Of the
aforesaid Court of Common Please, within aud
for said Ninton county, against sasd Joseph
llanen, William Bray and George W.Johnstcn,
as partners trading under the firm, name Of Ha-
men, Bray &Co., defendents setting forth among
other things;
First. That about the 27th. day Of December
1869, the said defendants were dealers in sheep d,
that they brought them into the neighborbood
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
Hanen were present, and that said defsndents
By said Bray and llAnen, represented 10 the
plaintiff that said sheep were thorough bred
Spanish sheep, brought directly from Washing.
ton county Pennsylvania, that the grown sheep
of the flock were worth twenty dollars per head
that they were Of the best quality Of sheep
known, that they would shear from six to ten
ibS. Of wool annually, that some Of tlam bad
yielded ten lbs. of wool the previous spring,
the growth of single year, as said Hanen and
Bray, personally knew. That they we're sound,
free from disease &c. That plaintiff was ignor-
ant Of the bred, quality, soundness' age and
condition of said sheep, and relied wholly upon
the representations ofthe said Bray sad Hq1en.
That plaintiff agreed to buy fifty Nod ofsaid
sheep, and agreed TO pay, TO the said Hanen,
Bray " Co. and gave his Obligations herefor.
four hundred TBS Of wool per annum on the LIST
day Of July in each Of the years 1868, 1864, 1858
1866 and 1857. That If plaintiff became uissat-
sfed that said defendents were to take back
said sheep and cancel his said five obligations
given as aforesaid, that the first Of saie Obliga.
Ii ons was drawn for 400 lbs Of wool due July
lst 1899, but that the aforesaid obligations were
frnudulently 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
10 cheat and dofraud 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 ton lbs Of wool an
nally, were not sound &C. That paintiff reQuss-
ted defendents to take back said sheep and can
eel said obligations sc.
That said Hanen, is resident of the State Of
Pennsylvania, that, said obligations are in pos
session ofsaid Bray, that SAID plaintiff has been
and is at the expence ofkeeping said sheep at b
cost ufnOt less then seventy-hvo cts. per day &C.
Second. That the said defendents at the
same time and place, further intending to cheat
and delraud the plaintiff under like false und
fraudulent representations, as to breed stock
value, annual yield Of wool, etc. prOcuieI the
plaintiff to onter into contract to keep fny
head of said sheep for the periOed of five years,
ON shares, of same breed and quality, that the
same were to DO not over three years of age,
like number at the end Of the term to be return
ed 70 defendents, 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 1865, one hundred
and fifty lbs Of wool, on the lst day OF July 1865
one hundred and fifty lbs wool; and on the ! ST
day Of July 1867, one huRdred and fifty lbs Of
wool. That if the plaintiff became dissatisfied
saiG deiendents were to recind raid contract
that plaintiff was ignorantas as to quality, breed,
yalueyielG and soundnesS, ofsaid sheep, received
the same, and gave his obligations for the de-
livery OF said wool to defendents, at times an
in amounts as stated, that the represen tatons
Of letendents were false and fraudulent as they
knew, that sheep we're unsOund, would not yield
wool as represented etc. that plnintif sent o.
messenger to said Bray requesting him to take
back said sheep, and deliver up aforesaid obga-
tions to the said plaintiff, that said Bray, reus-
ed 50 to do, that said obligations are still in the
hands ofsaid Bray that the keeping fsaid fifty
head OF sheep is worth seventy five cts per day
from the 9th day Of December 1862, which said
petition contains Prayer.
That the said defendants and each of them
mny be enjoined from assigning transferring orr
in any 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 defendants
may be compelled TO deliver up all of aforesaid
obligations, to take back both said lots ofsheep
and Pay the plaintiff for keeping same, not less
tim y seventy-fVe cts per day, for eacn ofsaid
cts Of sheep, that the plaintiff be discharged
frOnI all the obligations OF said contracts, and
that he be restored to all he haslost by reason
thereof, and such other relief rs may be- accord,
ng tn equity.
And said defendents will take notice that on
injunction has been allowed in this cause
McClintick, 4 Smith GEORGE BARNET,
e Bratton, att'ys for Pltf. Feb. 26th-6S-Gw.