The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1868-06-11

Larceny, which was on trial when we went to
press last week. the jury returned verdict ol
guilty. Sentenced to the Penitentary for five
years.
Samuel Bum vs. George scurlock. This is an
action to set aside conveyance Of real estate
made by George scurlock to his son Williamso n
Scurlock, on account of want of consideration,
and charging that the conveyance was made to
hinder and defend creditors, one Of whom was
the plaintiff, since deceased Case not yet deci-
ded. Hastings for plaintiff, Trip for defense.
Alvey Downey VS.. Ruth DOwney. This was O
petition for divorce, charging wllful absence for
three years. Divorce granted. Trlpp for petl-
toner.
State Of Ohio vs.. William 0'Rourke and Peter
Mcdonnell. Indictment for isticuffs. Plea not
guilty. Jury trial. Verdict not guilty. Has
tings for State, DUHadway for defense.
Enoch Jenkins VS.. Daniel Reigel. This was an
ACTION for malicious prosecution. The parties
had stack Of hay in partnership, and 1t was dl.
vided, and each one had his half assigned to him.
Jenkins took the h4lf that had been assigned to
Reigel. Reigel then took advice of one James
Davis justice of the peace, and commenced
proceedings against Jenkins for larceny, before
Henry Webber, j. p Afterwards Reigel con.
suited Mr.. DuHadway who advised him to dis
miss the proceedings, which be. did. Jenkins
then brought this suit for damages. The jury
were out long time, and finally brought in q
verdict for plaintiff for $3.50 Both parties were
dissatisfied with the verdict. Second trial de.
mnnded Trip for plaintiff, DuHadway for de-
fendant. -
William Ripley VS.. John Cochran and Marga-
ret M. Clewers. This was an action to set aside
and to several other parties, in all amounting to
about seven hundred dollars. Fines were being
imposed upon him, and his affairs were in a very
embarrassed condition. He then made deed
for his real estate, consisting Of room in the
Grafton Block, to his mother-in-law, Margaret
NJ. Clewers, the consideration named in the deed
being one thousand dollars. The evidence is
very contradictory. John Cochran testified that
DR.. 7. K. Clewers husband Of Margaret NJ. Clew-
ers, had advised him to make the conveyance to
creditors, and that the conveyance was wholly
without consideration. DR.. Clever testified that
it was bona .Jidc sale to Mrs. Clewers, and that
she had paid lor the property in full. The Court
held that The convey ance was fraudulent and
void, and must be set ASIDE; that the wife OF
Cochran had an interest in the property TO the
amount Of $2l0.00, and that this was prior
lien upon the premises; that the property be
sold, and the lien of Mrs. Cochran first paid, and
the residue applied upon the claims of the credit
ors of Cochran. ....-
Du Hallway for plaintiff, Tripp fog Mrs. Clew-
ers. .f
Mary E. Paul, by her next friend, VS.. Isaac T..
MOnahan ct. al. Lewis B. Paul and Lysander
May had bought stock of drugs from l. I,
Monahan, for viii ch they gave their promissOry
notes. When these notes became due, the
parties were unable TO pay them. May sold out
to Paul, Paul told Monahan TO take his pay out
of the goods, and he did take to the amount Of
about 800. Paul then sold the residue to his
wife for a note that she owned ut the time Of
marriage, for $500 and in terest. Paul got the
note cashed. and paid the proceeds to his cred
itors. MOnahan took ont writ of attachment
and seized the goods, alleging that the sale by
Paul to his wife was fraudulent This suit was
brought for damages, for the seizng of the
goods. Tried by the Court Judgment in favor
of Mary E. Paul against l. T. Monahan for $3.50.
The other defendants were the officers who siezed
the goods, and were mere nominal parties.
Hastings for plaintiff, DuIIadway & Laird for
defendants tf
Rebecca Hammons VS.. Edward Swanson. This
was an action for damages for breach Of mar
rlage contract. Defendant put in q plea of in
fancy. Plea sustained, and Judgment for de-
fcndant. asfst lFfhH}
Trip for plaintiff, DGIIadYay for defendant.
(Since the above report was prepared, the
case of Bum vs.. Scurlock has been decided.
The Court held that the deed made by George
Scurlock to his son Williamson ScurIock, was
fraudulent, and must be set aside. Caseappealed }
There was large amount Of other business
transacted, such as orders of sale, combinations,
decisions upon motions, demurrers, &c.
Court adjourned on Tuesday.