The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1867-03-21
.Gobl1 oR gCoaaaN .RLEAs-fnIn9

iufHtHWEeafk uifA WIZ bviicFtitb. E~as1~bAtN ~
summoned TO serve the balance of the term; Jo-
seph Rule, William J. Evans, David J. Jenkins
James Horton, VIM, s. Marsh Jdlh Phillips
VIM. J. J0lfnAoD, Hiram Mayhew, Samuel Claar,
Aaron MeIAughlln,f Beverly Kcenan and Samuel
n HaII9ha ,s5maGfb l lf3i- D iaalYs a
Tile following cases were disposed Of; ~, o,'i g
4 state Of Ohio vs.. George, w. Mclaughlin. .Gi
10 Thiswas On indictment for conceaIlng stolen
property. The horses Of Abraham French and
Edward Caldwell had been stolen, and were found
near The vresldepee of the, defendant Parties
watched the hbtsesI and defendont aud another
man came, psar them,r when the parties came 70
them aud defendant remained, but the other man
ran of There were MANY other circumstances
tending 70 duplicating the, delendapt. Verdict
ghilt,$ AThe defendant VAS seateucedto the PEN
itentlary for four iyearsyk TZOAI HOO
Hastings for sgsei pppgqp, pgpHs4way y
Mayo Tor defendant.
State of Ohio vs.. Washington Curry! ~ 3 4 (
Defendant was Indicted for breaking Into the
smoke house Of Mary Shearer IN Milton town
ship, and stealing two mddIngs Of bacon, worth
SIX dollars Defendant lives 81 Viatoh eoqnsy,
and parties tracked him until near his residence,
They went his house. and examined his boots.
which eorrespopded, with the tracks Thsyt then
left tho house, and Watched for a time, when q
daughierrOfs sther defendant Eas seen stoleavc the
house ofdefsAlans Wild sdneiAlng wrapped in a
table cloth She took It some distance from the
house and dropped Il ,byA AjfeDce. The pen Eept
to the place, aud found, just such meat 9s that
stolen from Mrs. sbearer,. Verdict guilty. De
fendant sentenced. to the Penitentiary for two
wears 40 rriNT;iocah litaEdu an
b Hastings for State; BdHad@ay and Mayo for
defendant selZI1 .IIL a04 TH99A
State o., Ohio Jys. George johnson ABE 1sasrre
james Jones and Apcn Hlsgias.i 4CysGHt
This was an indietment-for riot. A demurrer
.washFd, ON the ;groppd that the fystcount in
the Indictment did not charge that the offense
had been committed, WITT force, and objection
was raised toboth counts, ON the ground thatthe
value ofthe property was not slatedlCpPon which
the,yiolenee was committed. The court held that
the words 'force," and violence were slnony
nous, and that using the word violence" was
sufficient. Also, that it was not necessary to state
Tie yallelOf t6eproperty. Higgins and. johnson
then entered aplea of not guilty. Jury trial.
Verdict not guilty.
HastingsI aBd IDnngnnfor State: Mackley and
Laird for defendants.
Mary Gull, by her next friend, VS.. William VIII
ifngton ct al, '''eo, ''',,' =, ....',.,.,..,s
The defendant Wiilingtoh was constable and
had levied upon certain property, as the property
of Charles Gun. Plaintiff was Charles Cull's
wife. and Sic claimed the property as her separate
property, and brought tlis action TO recover the
value of it, Tried by the Court Judgment for
defendant y o,It} IN 2 b0f II Il
'1 Tripp fOtpiaiatlk; DUNCAN and DdHadway for
defendants.
James NJ, Mault vs.. James s. Meacham, Eli
Moore and P. P. Price.
This was an action on q constables bond. De-
murrer to petition. The Statute requires consta-
blesto entes into acbUlld githihiten daysafter
election to pay over all moneys which may come
into their hquds, md to, perform their duties ac-
cording to law This bond was for the perform
apee gfstheduliesof the officer according to the
best of his skill and ability In the body Of the
bond, Meachems name appeared, but that of the
suretles was efk btpi&. The surelies Signed the
bond but Mtdchaih did not sign It. The Court
held that this was no bond. Denurrer sustained,
and Judgment on DEMURRER for defsn lants, Z -
DuIadway and Mayo for, plaintiff; Hastings
for defendants. ..,,o,.,r.,-,
VIM, D. Trago vs., Joseph Andres ir.ctal. J
In this case the defendant, Andres, put in o
plea Of infancy, which the court held good, and
leave was taken to mraks new parties, and to
amend. ith,. lg ,sry al .9n.ioU 90 luog
90 Hastings for plaintiff DuHadway, Mayo and
Laird for defendants 'G'''' ..'-. ''li .i."
Andrew Long VS. Wm. S. Brown etal 100 20
This was M action to vacate a contract by
which plaintl hid sold certain coal privileges TO
defendants. Ademprger was ileds on the ground
that MIX lie, one Off the defendants, was sued BY
bis initials, instead of his full name and that diff
ferent causes of action were improperly Joined.
The Court held that, although it appeared by a
copy of the contract filed with the papers, that
Mr.. Kyle had signed the same by his initials, and
Statute provides that party may beFued by his
initials, whGh.he so contracts, set that must be
ayerred in the petition, Demurrer sustained on
this ground, but oyerruled on the other Leave
to amend petltiohlhtAlFty DAYS, and continued.
a DuIIadway and Mayo for plaintiff Trip fOr
defendants. iu sbn'4 HFaA1 ol byih'" i4 t.'i
Grafton wau vs.. HpldRh Ward. ~ + CT
This was petition FOR divorce, charging adul-
tcrywith some person unknown. The summons
was issuedon the Both day of JANUARY, 1857, and
served on the 3lst of the same month, and notified
the defendant to appear on Che 9th 9f March. A
motion was iled to quash the suItinbns, because
it did not giyesix weeks notice, as required by
Statute. The Court oyerruled the notion as the
Statute only requires six weeks notice before the
heariag ofthe case, and the day fixed, in the sum
mons for appearance was not material, so that the
hearing does not take place until six weeks after
the sefviee.l The case then went totrial, The
evidence showed that the plaintiff went into the
army in Jannary. 1862 and did not return home
until June, 1861 On the 10TH Of Decen-
Der, 1868, the defendant was delivered of child.
Divorce granted. ti a}e '1.''gn q.
Macliley for defense. ~ III mi, rhine e.f'
Aaron Watson sen. vs. Aaron Watson jr.
This was petition to enforce contract for real
es tate. Indecldingl this case the Courtsad that
the defendant was an, infant who had answered
by gaardida ad Item, asking the Court to hold
the plaintiff to strict proof This contract was
parol, and the Statute Of Frauds would have been
a good defense, II It had been pleaded as this
Statute must be, In all cases where It Is to be in
terposed sbptlnthls case the Court must regard
1t as substantially pleaded by the answer Of the
guardian, The plaintiff was inpossession Of the
lands, but his possession could not take the case