The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1866-10-25
COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Huty SuIuuInS NS. JdCkbOu Nlllhduu,
administrator of Nathan Gilliland, de-
ceased. This was an action for work
and labor, in building house for Nathan
Gilliland, during his life time. The
performance of the work was admitted,
but payment was claimed. Verdict for
defendant. DUNCAN & DuHadway for
plaintiff, Trip for defendant.
David Roberts VS.. Lewis Landrum.
This was an appeal from justice of the
peace. Plaintiff claimed that defend
ants dogs had killed his plaintiffs
sheep. The jury could not agree.
Trip for plaintiff, DUNCAN & DuIIad-
way for defendant.
Greenberry J. Delay vs.. Isaac Tennis
and Wife. This was an action for
SANDER. Plaintiff claimed that defend
ants wife had called him (plaintif) a
thief The defense was that the parties
were all members of the same church,
and that there were reports in circula-
ton about plaintiffs sons taking tur-
nips, and that plaintiff knew this; and
that the words spoken were in a con-
versation with the class leader of the
church, when the parties were endeav-
oring to adjust the matterin the church.
Defendants did not claim that they ever
thought the plaintiff dishonest. The
jury brought in verdict in favor of
the plaintiff, and assessed his damages
at SITS. Second trial granted, and
bond fixed at $500. Moore forplaintiff,
Hastings & Trip for defense.
Josiah Marcum VS.. Jacob II. Kicker.
The plaintiff was carrying on job of
coaling at Madison Furnace, and got in
debt over one thousand dollars. He
then made public sale of his personal
property, at which sale Kicker bought
some horses, to the amount Of between
three and four hundred dollars. Mar
cum sued Kicker for the amount, seek
ing to charge him individually. The
evidence showed that after the sale,
Marcum agreed that if he came out in
debt with his job, he would not ask pay
for the horses He abandoned the job,
and was still in debt to the company.
Case tried by the Court. Judgment for
defendant. DUNCAN, Collins and Mayo
for plaintiff, Trip & Hastings for de-
fendant.
Sylvester II. Policy VS.. Peras r.
Policy, administrator of Daniel Policy.
The plaintiff claimed that defendant had
made settlement in the Probate Court,
and that there was found in his hands
over $4,000, and that one eighth of the
sum was due the plaintiff, as his distri-
butive share, he being one of the heirs
of Daniel Policy. Defendant answer
ed that two days before the settlement
in the Probate Court, the money was
stolen from him, without any fault or
negligence on his part. To this answer
the plaintiff demurred, raising the points
that under the law of balment, the
stealing of the money from the admin
istrator would not release him from the
payment, and that the settlement in the
Probate Court was conclusive against
the defendant. The Court overruled
the demurrer on both points, holding
that if the administrator used ordinary
care, and the money was stolen, he was
not held liable, and that the settlement
in the Probate Court was not conclusive
Laird for plaintiff, Trip for defendant.
This is the more important business
up to Saturday evening. The Grand
Jury adjourned on Friday afternoon,
having been in session nearly four days.
They examined sixty witnesses, and
found twenty-five indictments.
The following is the report of the
Grand Jury, upon visiting the county
Jail:
The Hon., The Judgc Of tie Court Of Common
Ileds Of Jackson County, Ohio.
The Grand Jury for the October Term of said
Court submit, that they have visited the Jail Of
said county at the present sitting, and find no
prisoners confined therein. The Jail is an old
building, not safe for the holding Of prisoners,
owing to its old and dilapidated condition We
find, however that the same Is In all respects cor
rcctly kept so far rs is practicable from the con-
dition Of the building, except that no rules are
posted up.
JOSEPH ATEN,
Foreman Of the Grand Jury"
OCTOBER 10, 1866.
THE SAME PARTY.