Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1868-12-12
Court Proceedings.
HON. N. L. cHAFFEE, PRESIDING.
From the Reporter.

Phillip Hart, ct. al. VS. Loren Gould, CT al.
civil action, injunction allowed, on plaintiff 5
giving an undertaking with surety of 500, and
this cause continued.
A. L. Reed VS.. Benz. Mock, civil action,
judgment for S1OO,92, order of sale issued.
Catlin Harmon VS.. Chester Jones, civil
judgment for $245,59, and order of sale issued
c. S. Marvin, VS.. E. W. Morley-settled-
each party pay one half the costs.
Richard Parch VS.. Z. D. Chapman, settled
at defendants cost
Sarah A. Krahl vs.Henry J. Pepper-civil
judgment for $234,3O.
Fifield & Powers VS.. J. B. Tyler-dismiss-
ed.
J. F. Stark & Co. vs. A. F. Catony- dismiss
cd.
Mary Brown vs. N A. Cool and others
surety on note, jury tai, jury withdrawn and
this cause continued.
s.W Humphrey VS.. II H Hall-settled at
defendants cost.
Lyman Webster VS., NJ. E. Barrett. ct al
Judgment for S7,o25, %.
Robt. Green VS.. las. NJ Fifeld, ct al. surety,
settled at defendants cost.
Sarah Barr VS.. Julia Barr-parlition set
tied.
Chester Sanford vs.. Jocob Givens-iudg-
ment for plaintiff of 1915 and COSTS
Parmelia Hoskins vs. Virgil Hoskins, civil
action, settled at defendants cost.
Mary Patchen VS. Levi Patchen, Jr alimony
dismissed without prejudice
R0hpOPly g 10 US TIa1soo WI i'll
judgment for plaintiffs of $4S94S.
II. Hubbard 6 Co. VS.. T. s Fuller, civil
Judgment for plaintiffs S1,G41,34
Lucy N: Chccseman VS.. George D. San
ford, civil judgment for plaintiff Sl59,34
S. S Parker VS.. VIM Brinckerho1f, settled
and costs paid.
Isaac Shrine, administrator vs. Jane Shrine
each pay his own costs.
State Of Ohio VS.. n T. Ackerman, motion TO
re-taX, the same is overruled, and the plaintiff
recovers its costs.
\. j. Baldwin VS.. D. Young-civiI appeal,
jury trial. The plaintiff comes into court and
charges in his petition, that said defendant en-
tered upon the premises of the plaintiff, and
carried away ten cords of wood valued at S25.
This charge they failed to prove, and verdict
was rendered in favor of defendant The par
ties reside in Saybrook.
4. L. Hardy vs. James Tincker-civil, Jury
trial, Judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff
of S44
Asa Hall VS.. T. B. Curtiss- ss-confrmation-
sale confirmed and deed ordered
John Harmon ct al. vs. J. r. Cook and E.
Lockwood-continued on motion of defend
ant.
J. Root VS.. Jackson Einccnt-jGdgment for
plaintiffs s734,56.
Newell Brothers VS.. D. S. GilFord ct. al
the receiver of d. s. Clifford is order to re-
port.
Elzanda Bartholomew VS.. P W Tuttle, civil
Judgment for plaintiff $S23;16 defendant gave
nct;ce Of appeal.
W. L. Bartram VS.. Davis & Udell-ciyil-
judgment Of justice affirmed.
r. R. Brooks VS.. q. w. Cooper-civil action,
jury trial. the defendant was taken for tres
pas and damage for entering plaintiff land
and drawing away 40 rods of fence, for which
Judgment was obtained Of $12,00 The parties
reside in Saybrook.
Ohio VS.. Samuel Bishop-rccciving stolen
property. This cause is continued with de-
fendant entering into a recognizance of ST.
800
S. 3. Church VS.. D. N. Strong ct. ai-con-
tinued with leave of plaintiff to amend his Pc
tition.
Mary E. Irish VS. Chauncy Irisl-divorce,
the same is granted, cause, cruelty and neglect
of duty-S2O0 to be paid to defendant
Gordon, Mcmillan & Co. vs. Chelsea Webster
judgment for $3S22, ,72
Ohio VS.. Irving Mann, grand larceny-con-
tinued with defendant entering into recogni-
zancc of 5000.
An unusual amount of business has been
disposed of this term, about 13 jury cases have
been tried. The next term of Court will COM
mence on Monday, Feb. 18th, 1859.