Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1868-12-09
Court Proceedings,

Court Proceedings.
The case Of Osborn and Hall VS. snyder wa
concluded Tuesday, and verdict rendered il
favor Of plaintiffs for Sg74.04. y motion 10
new trial is pending.
On the same day Daniel Eckenrode VS. Ad
ministrator Of Thomas Benton, a suit from
Niles upon a mechanics lien, was tried. n
d. Sanderson and f. II. Ensign, Esquires, ap
peared for plaintiff, Stun for defendant
Verdict Wednesday morning for plaintiff o
$3.50.
The next case in order was that of L. d. NJ
Sweat VS. John Hutehins, S. W. Cozzens and
w. T. Spear. Plaintiff in this case claimed
TO recover Of defendants for services as al
Attorney in procuring a release OF a steam
boat in the possession of the Government
He set forth, in substance, that in March
1866, at Washington, defendant, Cozzens and
himself entered into a verbal contract, by
which plaintifagreed to endeavor to procure
a release Of the boat, ]. D. Swain, from the
Secretary of War, and was to receive, II sue
| cessfuI, from the defendants, who were the
Attorneys OF the claimant, a fee Of $1,000.
Plaintiff went forward and procured an order
/ u LGAtdcCf bAE II N11 NoAANS1 ~ a S-A
ton that the claimant should release all
claim upon the Government for use Of and
damage to his boat. which had been in use
by the Quartermaster's Department some
eighteen months, and had been so much
damaged as to be almost worthless. The
claimant refused TO accept the boat on the
conditions imposed, and defendants, whose
fee was contingent, got nothing. 4 petition
for the release of the boat had originally been
made by defendants, as Attorneys for claim
ant, to General Candy, then in command at
New Orleans. and he had passed upon the
ownership of the claimant, and his loyalty,
and found in his favor on these points, but
declined exercising the power OF release,
taking the view that the boat was captured
property within the meaning OF the statute,
and forwarded the case TO the Secretary Of
War, with the recommendation that the boat
be delivered up to claimant Upon condition
that he release all claim for use and damage.
Upon this trial plaintiff claimed that the
contract with defendant Cozzens was hat
plaintiff should procure a release in conform
ity with the above recommendation of Gen.
Candy, and thatwith full knowledge of the
terms Of the order, defendant COzzens had
paid plaintiff 500. The claim was denied by
defendants, who set up that plaintiff agreed
to procure a release; that for doing so de-
PENDANTS were TO pay him $1,000 when they
should get possession Of the boat, out of fees
realized; that the order obtained was not
such a release as had been b~argained for:
that it was of no value to defendants, and
that the one hundred dollars paid plaintiff
by defendant Cozzens was paid under the
supposition that the order Of release was sat
isfactory, and without knowledge of any con-
dition whatever. Messrs. Taylor & Jones ap-
peared for plaintiff, and +. E. Hutchins, Esq,
and defendant HutchinS for defendants.
h case was very sharply tried. The jury
took the case in the evening, and on Thurs
day morning, at opening of Court, appeared
with a verdict for the defendants. Plaintiffs
counsel gave notice OF Emotion for a new trial.
Thursday the trial of State cases was
upon. The first was that Of Ohio VS.
Hewey, for horse stealing. Prose
eutor Stun conducted the prosecution, and
Taylor & Jones the defence. The verdict was
guilty. His counsel made the usual motion
for new trial, which being OverTuled, they
~interposed a motion in arrest of Judgment.
which was also promptly overTuled, n the
sentenced to three years in the PEN
itentiary. Samuel quarters viii be changed
to Columbus during this week, unless in the
meantime he h dig out Of fail again.
The mex case was Ohio VS. J.. r. SheffietOn,
for assault with intent to kill. This
is from Newton Falls, and had excited
local interest. stull, assisted by En-
sign, prosecuted. Taylor & Jones defended.
The jury found the homicide justihable, and
after five minutes consultation returned with
1 verdict of not guilty.
On Friday, the jury in the case Of Hutchins
rs Curtis & Boyce figured to conclusion, and
in with o verdict for plaintiff OF Sls,3s5.-
2. II will be remembered that this case was
ried last spring to d. Caldwell, Esq, as Ref
sree. His report found due plaintiff sIs,47S.-
apparently 1885 more than the present
But that report embraced an item
# S79a.5O. supposed by the Referee to be due
rom Mr.. Hutchins TO the Executors of
1inkley, as rent, which being erroneous,
vas not claimed on the second trial. So the
present verdict is really s706.14 higher than
he Referees report.
Ohio VS. Shefleton, murder, and Thomas
assault, were stricken of. The fol-
owing were noUied Ohio VS. John Wen,
assault and battery; same VS. Edward Brat
keeping rooms where liquor is sold
INK W nOAA1 II. -ANAAAo anu - I
for same offence.
On Saturday the important case OF Ohio VS.
Medley, indicted for rape was COM
nenced. The parties reside in Vienna The
'rosecuting witness, Mrs. Alanson Taylor,
5 a young woman about DC years Of age, the
mother o several children defendant a gray
lsired man Of g. or IS years of age. TIL Of
is alleged to have been committed at
he home of the prosecuting witness m day
asst summer about nine o'clock in the morn
ng, the defendant, as is charged, entering
he house by a rear door, and finding the wO-
nan asleep in her room. The details are not
for these columns. The Prosecuting
Attorney, assisted by E. B. Taylor, Esq, con-
Iuets the prosecution, and Messrs. Hutchins
I GIidden the defence. The case has excited
Inusual interest, and the lawyers are doing
heir best. The jury took the case Monday
vening. After ten minutes deliberstion a
-erdict Of not guilty was returned. +