Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1868-02-19

submitted to the jury this day noon, ate
arguments for the plaintiff by Judge Gid
den and H. ]. Hyde, and for the defend
ants by D. NJ. Wilson, Esq, who conduct
ed the defense alone. There being n,
other case for trial to-day, court diour ne
until morning.
THURSDAY, Feb. 18Th.
In the case of Goist VS.. Powers, ct. al.
submitted yesterday, the jury returned
verdict this morning in favor of plaintiff
and assessed The damages at $50, 400.
The first cause for trial this mornin
was that of Madison Powers VS.. the Ma
hOning Coal Company. This case ais
comes up from the prolific township o
Hubbard, and is one of vast importance Il
both parties. Ii is an action to eject tn,
defendant-a experimentation the RICH
Of way which it now has over about 2Ol
acres of land belonging to plaintiff. TIL
plaintiff claiming that the defendant dis.
possessed itself of this right by reason of 1
denial-of the landlords (plalntif's) title,
The defendant denies the "denial,'' and
insists that it has done nothing for which
it should be dispossessed of its right o.
way. Messrs. Woodwork 6 Leslie, and
Hutchins & Glidden appeared for the
defendant, while Messrs. L. B. Tayler and
D.. NJ. Wilson appear for the plaintiff
There are some nice questions of law in
volved in the case, which were skillfully
argued by the able attorneys on both
sides. The mattes was submitted to the
jury early in the afternoon, when, under
the charge of the court which virtually
decided the case-they returned a verdict
for defendant.
The case of Long vs.. Butler, Williams
& Co., which is also a coal case from Hub
bard, was not taken up. 1t is brought to
recover on a Note given by defendants to
plaintiff for coal mining privileges. The
plaintiff produces the note which he asserts
has newer been paid. The defendants ad-
nit the execution Of the note and that the
has never been paid, but allege by
way of defense, that tie same was given
a valuable and legal consideration.
Messrs. Wilson and GIidden appeal FOR
and Messrs. Sanderson and Jones
for defendant The case was submitted
late in the day, when the jury returned a
prompt verdict for plaintiff, w~hereupon
court adjosrned.
FRIDAY, Feb. 18th.
The Hon. Darius Caldwell, the referee
the important coal case of John Hutch
ms VS.. Curtis and Boyce, sent in his re-
port last evening. He finds the main
for the plaintiff, and assesses his
damages at S~lS,47s,6s. 1t is altogether
likely that both parties will except to
parts of the report, but if the same be
confirmed this will be the end of this i'm
litigation. AT some future time
we may undertake to give a history of this
iuib more in detail.
The first case for trial this morning was
hat of Gasetvs. Sawyer. Messrs. Hutch
ms. Ratlif& Hutehins appeared for plain
if, and Aessrs. Taylor & Jones for de-
'endant. Thisis a replevin suit, and has
something like the following history: In
he spring of 1866, a suit was begun be.
Justice Read, OF Vernon, by the Ad-
of Sch Hayes against D. B.
Sexton & Co, for a large amount of hay
purchased from said Administrator by W.
Warner. An a~ttschraent was laid
lpOn a valuable nay-press and a large lot
# hay-lCosea and pressed-as the property
# Sexton & Warner. This property was
'eplevined and taken from Sawyer, the
defendant in this suit, who was then the
Constable of Vernon township, by Levi
J. Case : the plaintiff in this suit who
laimed it as his by right of purchase. He
that he purchased the same of
on the 9TH day of Apr, 1856, in
rood faith and for a valuable consideration; !
hat it was not attached until the 9th, and
hat consequently the title in the same
assed to him before the attachment was
sid. The defendant claimed that Sexton
vas a partner with Warner in the business
# pressing hay at Rurgh Hill; that Case
7as acting for the interest and as the agent
f Sexton, and that the purchase by Case
vas in fraud of the rights of the creditors
f Sexton s Warner. The jury found the
ssues FOR the defendant, and assessed his
amages at S2s7.OO.
In the afternoon a motion was heard 20
issofve an attachment in an important
ase from Portage County. Messrs. Rock
7ell, of Kent, and TayIer, Of Warren,
IMPORTED the melton, and Mr.. Hart, of
.avenna, opposed it. Upon the coming
l of the Court in the evening, his Honor
to entertain the motion.
SATURDAY, Feb. 18th.
The a 5 ofFitch VS.. Thomas was called
u AOf NLlaA THIS MuIAinS- LIS MdlbeE
1mes from Kinsman, and is also q replevin
1t has been tried once before, and
as then decided in favor Of plaintiff, but
to some informality or irregularify,
be court granted a new trial on motion of
efendant. The subject matter Of this 1t
e but fercely contested suit IS a heifer.-
Whatever becomes of the case, it is very
tina! the subject matter viii never
ay the costs of this litigati On. Messrs.
Loses and Ensign appear for the heifer
nd plaintiff, and Messrs. Taylcr s. Jones
II the heifer and defendant, so it will be
en- that the subject matter viii be
.red for whichever way this case is fnnl-
decided. What a promising creature
better must be-
IF Ihad acow that would give such milk,
L would dress her in the finest silk, I
/ would feed her on the best Of hay
Ana milk her nineteen times a day" -
Early in the afternoon, the evidence
eng all in, the further consideration of
lis case was postponed until Monday
This was deneto accommodate