Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1868-06-03
Court Proceedings.

! Court Proceedings.
In the Vernon murder case, j. c. Saw
yer, the defendant, has been released on
: bail, the bail bond fixed by the Court
being $4,000. There will probably be an
f adjourned term, early in July, called
: especially to try this case. As this will
: be an important and interesting trial we
propose to give u readers q very minute
account of it when it shall come on.
On Monday, the 25th ultimo, the csse
of Demo vs.. Demo was tried, F. E.
Hutehins, Esq presiding on the Bench.
This case comes from Vernon. and is a
dispute about the title to a small piece of
land. The decision has been reserved
Following this, was the case of The State
VS.. Clark Gilman. Gilman was charged
with an assault and battery, with inton t
to kill, upon a young man in Mecca
named Parsons. 1t seems that they had
some misunderstanding about a mutual
lady friend, which resulted in quite a
serious quarrel. During the %scufie, which
was after dark, Parsons received quite a
dangerous cut on the throat. The jury
found the accused guilty of assault and
battery, but not with intent to kill.
The Gustavus thieves were next tried on
the charge of grand larceny, but the proof
did not show that the property stolen was
of sufficient value to warrant a conviction
on the charge Of grand larceny, eonse-
quently the jury simply found them guilty
of petit larceny. Thus these hopeful
young gentlemen were compelled to defer,
for, probably only a brief season, their
visit to the extensive establishment, which
the generosity of the State has provided at
Columbus fo- such characters. How IN.
fortunate it is that the good people of
Gustavus could not lave left some of their
Sunday go-to meeting clothes at home, OF
the Sunday these WORTHLESS visited their
town.
On Thursday, the important case of
Nathan o. Humphrey VS.. Jas. D. Geddes,
was tried. Nathan o. claims that James
d. assaulted and battered him in 4 man
ner not t. be endured, on account of which
he demanded several hundred dollars
damages. But the jury did not appear to
look upon the matter in the same light
that Nathan o. did, but were rather
inclined 10 the opinion that the case was
of too frivolous e nature to be brought up
to this court. At least SO it would appear
from their verdict, which was for plaintiff,
to whom they gave so cents damages.
Messrs. Taylor and Ensign appeared for
the plaintiff and W T. Spear, ESQ for
the defendant.
On Wednesday, the 9th ultimo, the
case of Sweet VS.. John Hutchins, ct. al,
was tried. This suit is brought on a YER
bal contract for legal services claimed TO
have been rendered defendants by plain
tiff. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff
for the amount of his claim, $500. The
defendants proposed to take a second trial.
Messrs. Taylor & Jones appeared for
plaintiff. The defendant, Mr.. Hutchins,
appeared for himself and co defendants.
The case OF Meats vs.. Waldorf, was
tried on Thursday. This is an appeal
suit, and Is on a warranty. The plaintiff,
who resides in Pennsylvania, came over
into this county and purchased a COW from
defendant, which the plaintiff claimed did
not prove just what she was warranted to
be. A judgment was rendered for plain
tiff aud his damages assessed at SS5, OO.-
Taylor & Jones for plaintiff, and Hutchins
& Gldden for defendant.
The important case of Osborn We Sny-
der, was taken up on Friday. The plain
til here sues defendant for a ~misapplica-
ton Of partnership funds. This case comes
from Bloomfield, and has excited there
considerable local interest 1t was closely
and c~leverly tried on both s.des-Taylor
and Stull appearing for plaintiff, and Full
Ter & Moses for defendant A verdict
was returned for plaintiff. Defendant
filed a motion for a new trial, that failing,
he will take a new trial.
On Monday, the case of Redman vs..
Williams was disposed of. The evidence
went to show that the plaintiff, upon a
given day, had been successful in two or
three bar room fights, and was returning
home flushed with success, when he met.
the defendant, a brother of one of his vic.
tins. One word brought on another until
they finally came to blows, sharp and
severe. The'result was that Redman got
badly worsted, hence this suit for damages.
The jury returned a prompt verdict for
the defendant.
Following this was the case of Anderson
& Rupp VS.. Lorillard. This suit Is
brought IN an account for goods sold and
delivered by plaintiff to defendant. A
verdict was returned for plaintiffs for the
full amount of their claims, $50, IS
Defendant gave notice of second trial.
Court will probably continue in session
until about the 10th Of the month.