Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1868-11-11
Court Proceedings,

PENDANT.
In the afternoon the Grand Jur.
was empaneled, charged and set t
work under the special direction o
Prosecutor STULL. The panel con
sists of the following named gentle
man: Thomas Craig, Isaac f. Van
Wormer, Henry WildersOn, S. S
King, George Fusselman, Charlie
Van Wye, Moses Bacon, Calvin Card
Samuel Kerr, AlansOn Camp, D. H
Bennett, Daniel Warner, SIS. John
son, Josiah Soule, w. S. Woodrow.
The balance of the day was Occu
pied in hearing q case reserved from
Mahoning County involving tA'
Unisn Hotel propertya at Youngstown
The case of John Hutchins VS.
Curtis & Boyce was commenced Tues
day morning to q special jury 8m'
moned for the purpose. The plaintiff
in this case is well known in thi:
community. The defendants are
prominentand wealthy coal operators,
residing at Sharon, Penna.
This case, as far as amount is con-
cerned, is the postimportant Irrigated
case ever tried in our Common Pleas,
and probably no case has called about
it more able and eminent counsel.
Judge RANNEY, the Plaintiff in per-
son, of Cleveland, Judge SUTLIFF,
Judge HOFFMAN, and F. E. HUTCH
ms, Esq, of this place, appear for the
Plaintiff, while F. T. BACKUs, Esq,
of Cleveland, and TAYLOR & JONES,
Esquires, of Warren, have the man.
agement of the case for the Defend
ant. The Plaintiff has handed us a
copy of his Paper Book, covering for
ty-eight pages of printed matter, neat
~ gotten up, including the petition
and exhibits, answer, reply, an argu-
ment by Judge HOFFMAN, and a
statement of the case by Plaintiff, and
points of law involved. The book has
evidently been prepared with care, and
must prove of great service TO counsel
and the Court in the trial of the
case. A statement of all the points at
issue would require more room than
our columns will admit for the pur-
pnse at this time, while it would prob
bly, not be of interest to the general
reader and nothing but the merestout-
line will be attempted.
In 1856 the plaintiff was the owner
of aIease of coallandin Brookfeld, and
in December of that year, sold a two
thirds interest in it to Messrs Curtis &
Boyce. TheIease was to run ten years,
and the lessee hadthe right of min
ing 200, 600 tons of coal, of 2,24O TBS to
the ton. By the contract of sale of the
two-thirds to Curtis & Boyce, they
were to mine the coal permitted to be
mined by the lease, if practicable, and
account to plaintiff for one-third of
the profits each year, after deducting
expenses and a specified amount per
ton for use of capital, experimenting,
collecting, &c.
The petition alleges, among other
that Curtis and Boyce made
statements TO plaintiff, about the 1st
Of January of each year, of the years
business up to the LIST of November
preceding, and that from the COM
mencement of the contract to Nov. LIST,
1866, the total of profit reported was
sI57, S76.S6 one-third of which was
paid to plaintiff; that there were mis-
in the annual statements, by
reason Oferrors in computation, stating
accounts of sales, &C., in overcharge
IN cost of mining, and in reducing
net to gross tons, amounting in all TO
1924.
Petition further alleges that it was
practicable, during the life of the lease
to mine the 200, 900 tons permitted by
the lease, but that the defendants
failed to mine of that amount 81, 161
net tons, and expended much time,
and expense during the expiring
months of the lease, in dead work, &c,
beneficial to defendants but not to
plaintiff, and claims, by reason of the
premises, damage, which withinterest,
amounts to S1S,O11.37. Total claimed
$50, 72O.61.
The defendants answer, among 9TH
IT things, admits that some of the al
eyed mistakes of computation and
errors may exist, and if so, they
are willing to correct the same al
.eges that plaintiff had had access to
heir books; that at the expiration
Of each year the parties met and adj
listed and settled all demands and ac-
counts arising out Of the lease, hon
sstly, fairly and truthfully on part of
defendants, and with full knowledge
IN part of plaintiff and his agents of
all facts involved, and paid plaintiff
all his dues and profits, and plaintiff
received such payment in full salts
faction of all claims up to the previous
Nov. LIST, except only the error in re-
net TO gross tons, and also a
mistake in 1864 of $3.50. The answer
also in effect denies the allegations as
10 failure to mine all coal that could
practically be mined, and sets up
counterclaim of S73S.S7.
The reply of plaintiff denies the ma
terial ayerments of the answer.