Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1866-06-23

FRIDAY, June 22.-Tne Criminal Docket
was called over, and dozen of cases or
more marked for trial. But on account of
the sickness of the Prosecuting Attorney,the
trials were all postponed till next week.
The witnesses in criminal cases and the
traverse jurors were discharged till Mon
day next, at 91a A. NJ.
In the case of the State against John
observation-disclosures for burglary-the de-
fendant entered into recognizance with
surety in the sum of 500, for his appear
ance at the next term, and the case was
continued.
The motion for new trial by the defend
ant in the case of Henry c. Crawford
against The City of Columbus, came up
for argument. The motion alleged, as
grounds for new trial, that the verdict
was contrary to law; that 1t was not sus-
tanned by the evidence, and that the dam
ages awarded the plaintiff were excessive.
The argument was made by Noble for the
motion, and by II. B. Wilson and Warden
on the other side. The principal ground
relied on by the defendants counsel for
new trial was that the plaintiff did not use
ordinary care when he sustained the injury
complained of, and being in fault himself,
he ought not to recover. To this it was
answered on the part of the plaintiff that
the question of ordinary care was one for
the jury to decide, and not for the Court.
1t was also contended by the plaintiffs
counsel that he had used ordinary care,
and that the verdict could not be set aside
and new trial granted on the ground of
excessive damages, unless 1t clearly ap-
peared that the jury were under the infiu-
ence of passion or. prejudice.
We should, perhaps, have stated at the
outset that this is the case in which the
plaintiff (Crawford) recovered verdict
against the City for $4,000 damages for in
juries to his person, alleged to have been
caused by his falling at'night into an open
sewerage-way across the south sidewalk of
Long street.
After hearing the arguments of counsel,
the Court took the motion for new trial
under advisement.. rlI 0tf lau't
In the case of James Cummings against
James Naughton, the plaintiff filed de-
mand for second trial under the statute
and the Court fixed the amount of plaintiffs
undertaking at 5000.
In the case Of John G. Neil against John
]. and Samuel Rickly, motion was made
by the plaintiffs counsel for the appoint
ment Of a Receiver to take charge Of the
premises during the tendency Of the suit
This is civil action brought for the re.
covery of the first installment alleged TO bt
due on the following contracts:
COLUMBUS, Feb. 10Th, 1866.
We hereby agree to purchase of John G.
Neil all his land situated on the east and
west side Of the Olentangy river, just north
: OF Columbus, and commonly known as the
"Hunter, Flanakin and Carter Farms, " com
prising six hundred acres, more or less, ,and
we agree to pay for the same as follows
viz: ten thousand dollars cash down
/ Twenty-Five thousand dollars on or before
the LIST day of July, 1855, with interest from
April 1st, 1896, and twenty-five thousand
dollars on or before the 1st day of October
, 1856, with interest from the lst day o.
RICKLY 6 BRO.
Attest: HENRY O'KANE.
The counsel for the plaintiff in this case
is s. s. Henkle, and for the defendants
Messrs. Green and Dresel. Two motions
have been filed in the case by the defend.
ants--one on the part Of j. j. Rickly tC
quash the summons served upon him In
the case, because no action had been com
menced against him.by the said plaintiff
and on the part of s. s. Rickly to strike
plaintiffs petition from the files: LIST. Be.
cause the action appears to be founded upor
an alleged instrument in writing, and {
true copy thereof is not attached to the
petition, nor IL. any reason assigned therein
why such copy is not attached; and I'd
J Because said defendant is not advised BY
the petitioner who is intended to be Joined
with him as co-defendant IN the action.