Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1866-04-17


or debt, vac tried By the court; judg-
me~s fpr she plaintiff in the sum of /,
$500 AFRO Dyer attorney for the plain.
til, and Messrs. johnson and Walker
tor the defendant Z
State. gs. W. d. Acres, and others,
IoFfeisaFe Of recognizance, Judgment,
$500 w r. Hargfave for the State.
State vs. John A. Roberts, recogniz-
ancs forfsitsd
o. Magenheiiaah Bs. John Kraft ct al
appealed BY defendants, tried BY the
Court judgment for $40 Law and An
thea fof the plaintiff -
John Duucah ss Isaac Lavender, ap
peal BY plaintiff, action for board &c.
| defendant fled bin of particulars, trial /
By jnfys verdict for defendant 10 the sum
Of &33. General Shackleford attorney |
for The plaintiff, and Colonel DENLY for |
the defendant
Susanna Mail Ds Mic W. Mall, action
Tor divorce, on the ground Of drunken
ness and abandonment. After hearing |
che evidence, the Court granted her .
divorce ana custody Of her children.
Peter Maisr for the plaintiff, non~appear-
ance By the defendant.
State b. James Rivers, for larceny
The Grand Jury ignored the bill, and the
defendant was discharged.
William Hoffman et al ps. William
Ripplemisrs action fyr debt Judgment
| BIZ default for 81 ,22O, and an order for
| The eaio Of property. Peter Maier at
torney for plaintiff.
| Tn tbs case Of Joseph M. Caldwell o..
Elizabeth Caldwell, action for divorce
plaintiff alleged that he was victim Of
misplaced confidence. Cause tried BY
the Court.
Colonel DENLY opened the case BY
very pathetic appeal in behalf of his
client He stated that be was an old
man-one altogether unused TO the
ways of the world, and liable at any
, moment to fall into soma, or any OF
the numerous pft.falls that deeigning
| women set for nnsuspecting old men.
That this woman had seduced him, won
!. npon Bis unauspicious nature, and had
inveigIed him into marriage.
Major Robinson for defendant, took
. Issue with Colonel DENLY on the ques-
lsion Of upon what particular grounds he
intended to try the case. He said that
!. Colonel d. grounds were entirely too
V extensive, and insisted that he should
3 confne himself TO the specific case. He
T said that Colonel Denby's plea reminded
him of that celebrated trial OF which
he had no doubt, all were familiar
I (Pick- wick %. Bardell) Il was true, the
q said case waH not in the Law Books,
/. but II answered for the comparison.
!. - The 6Fst witness called was Mr.. ]. L,
: Walker, who testified that the defend
Y ants widowed name was Malone; thai
she had two children; she resided in the
eastern part of the city. He never
# knew Of her being considered not re
Il spectacle. Did not know what class o.
= society she mnved IN. Could not re.
: member the day upon which he married
thans Soon after the marrige he said
r there had been difficulty between The
d parties, because plaintiff had moved al
= the furniture out of the house. This wal
but "a short time after the marriage
could not say exactly how long Tht
defendant had told him that the plaintiff
WAS always throwing mp to her tina
% other meu stayed with her. This hac
). made her mad, and ahe retorted tina
- Bob. Altman had stayed with her before
I. her marriage The plaintiff went bach
two or three times after that. Met hin
y at abe house; gave her money at thi
D. time; afterwards sent her money b
witness Mr. Caldwell is clerk in !
shoe store. He, the plaintiff, gave he
4 money at my Office, I went to the housI
To take the twenty dollars he gave nj
for her. He came while was there. h
g called her Lizzie. They talked as thougl
ID they would make 1t up. My impression
Il was that they would. He said severe
z times that be loved her, and wanted Il
= i've with her. but his children an,
- friends objected Said that he has
o. wanted to marry this woman and keep
1liftIe store, as he thought he could d
well. The reason he did not live witt
A. her was on account of the OBJ
"A iections of bic children. He left he
: for this reason. He did not tell NJ
y about taking the things back again
iy Tile told me some time after that b
lie would not live with her. She wished Il
4 see him-went to his store for him; b.
y was busy and could not come. Told mi
- then be could not live with her. I'll
'e stated when he gave me the $40 that sht
ID should not suffer- bat that he could no
A. Iiva with her.
ME Clark.--I live in Evansville. An
IN the boot and shoe business. Am
partner Of Gallman's. mr.. Caldwell j
'" em rluyed I'M our house; has been sine
r. last Spring one year ago. Mr.. Q. ha
be slept &C my store for the last five or 81.
N months. Previous tothat he slept at hi
! daughters. DO not know the time Of hi
y marriage he staid with his wife on
= night; after that, short time with hi
d, daughter; thensat the store. sleep q
Of the store No. IS Main Street; have slep
there always, except short time las
y September, when sick. He, the plaintiff
~ did not come Ia late at night Mr..
gets up first in the morning. Could no
5 smsar where heaslept when wassick
"a John .. McCorkle..--I know the de
t. fendnni: have known Ter two years. d.
= not know anything about her genera
q reputation Do not know of any on,
b. meeting The defendant at improper
a hours M =
= MIR. Cuppies KNEW the defendan
before marriage He visited the defend
y ant Observation-Disclosures dropped in Of al
evening as he was passing along" Wa
invited 10 the honae by plaintiff. Wa
requeated by him to discontinue m.
visits.
81 Lou Roberts, (eol This witness wa