The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1869-03-18

two causes Of action set forth in the petition.
The first cause Of action charged that plaintiff
and his wife were living together happily, on
the 2sth Of May, 1868, when defendant allenated
her affections, and caused her to leave her hus-
band The second cause, Of action set up that
defendant. about the same time, had dcbauched
plaintiffs wife. The claim for damages on each
count was $4,000, orin all, 10000. The evidence
showed that the plaintiff and bis wife were mar
led in the year 1867 Mrs Boswell had been a
widow before she married Boswell, and they
lived unhappily. Boswell abandoned her, and
then a correspondence commenced between her
and Stihler, who was widowcr, and who had
been paying his addresses TO her before her mar
rlage with Boswell The parties then became
reconclled and lived together a short time, but
still quarreled. They then finally separated, and
Boswell took up with another woman, and the
correspondence by letters was resumed between
Stifier and Mrs. Boswell and continued up to
the commencement of Court. Some half dozen
or more Of Stitler's letters had been captured,
and were read to the jury, and caused good
deal Of merriment The jury gave verdict In
favor Of plaintiff for $3.50 90. Second trial de-
manded. DuHSdway Il Mayo and Laird for
plaintiff, and Tripp and Hastings for defendant.
(. On Tuesday the case Of the State of Ohio VS.,
John Larkin was taken up. The indictment
charged the accused with breaking into the store
of Samuel jackson, at Portland, and stealing
goods. The prisoner is the man who some time
ago attempted to break out Of the new jail, He
is q young man, and said he was twenty years
of age. He has red hair, very fair skin, and is
cross eyed. He withdrew his plea of not guilty
and entered plea of guilty. When asked by
the Court if he had anything to say why the
sentence of the law should not be passed upon
him. he hesitated, aud when further questioned,
said thai he had just come from Virginia, when
he committed the crime, and that he could not
get work. and concluded to break into the store.
He said that his parents were dead. The Judge
then sentenced him to the Penitentiary for two
years. Jones for State, DuHadway g. Mayo for
defense. #Na
State of Ohio VS.. Richard Williams. Indict.
ment for breaking into the Mill of Samuel Jack
and stealing flour, meal, boots &c. Plea moi
guilty. The evidence showed that on the night
of the 28th of January, 1869, the mill was enter.
ed through an opening in the floor, where q
| board had beel, broken off the floor, and thai
| the goods had been stolen. and had been found
in the possession of Williams. The prisoner
was called 10 the stand by his counsel, and tes
tilted that he did enter the mill and steal the
-four and meal but that he did not break in il
the night. He said that be had been at the mil
the day before, and observing this board, he hat
kicked it off, and thus made the opening in tht
day time. He said that he had been working a
the furnace, but he could not get anything Il
eat, and that sooner than hear his children CRY
for bread, he resolved to steal. (lIere the wit
ness was moved to tearS.) He said tha t he tool
his son with him. His sonis afflicted with fits
He said be entered through this hole in the foo
and committed the theft, The jury retired, anC
in a short time returned verdict of guilty o
burglary, as charged in the indictment. Jone
for State, DuHadway & Laird for defendant.
State of Ohio VS.. Timothy ]. Evans. Durini
the war, the accused had been Captain of
company of National Guards. This was in tn
year 1864. After the company had been mus
tered out of service, under the statute, the Leg
slature passed an act, in the year 1867, requir
ing all officers of the late National Guards, VIII
had any balance of the company funds remain
ing in their hands unexpended, to pay the sam
over to the members of the company, and o
failure or refusal TO do so, such parties should b
punished by fine and Imprisonment. This in
dictment charged that Evans had such ba
ance in his hands, and refused to pay 1t ove
The accused, by his counsel, Hutchins & .TripT
filed special plea, asking to have the indie
ment quashed, and assigned seven distiDc
grounds. Mr.. Hutchins argued in favor Of I'll
special plea, and Hastings and Laird against /
The Court sustained the plea, and quashed th
indictment, principally on the ground that I'll
law creating the o6ense was Er Post Facto, an
void. When the money came into the hands
Evans, if he had misapplled 1t, he would onl
have been liable in o civil action, for breach
trust; but now, after the money may have bee
sqnandered, under belief that it was only
breach of trust, the Legislature undertakes
make it q crime. This could not be done.
State of Ohio vs.. Beverly Sharp. This ca
was tried on Thursday, 1t was for taking pa
in the same burglary for which Williams W
convicted, aud the evidence was substant
I the same. Sharp is brother to Williams wi
and is hard looking customer. His count
! nance exhibits more of imbecility than viciou
ness.
This case was tried by q special jury, col
r posed of the following gentlemen, all residil
. In towns j. H. Bum, Levi Davis, Daniel joni
, Frank MOtz, George Pugh, VIM. Vaughn, CHI
Jones, Jesse Osborn, w. T. Washam, N. T. Ca
cit, Jos. Dickson, and II. H. Marshman.
The jury remained out all night, and cou
: not agree, there being nine for conviction a
!, three foracquittal The jury was discharge
and a venre issued for another jury to app'
u at ten o'clock ON Monday. Jones for the Sta
Q DuHadway and Laird for defense.
7 Mary e. Paul, by her next friend, vs.. /.
Monahan. This was second trial The CT
was tried at last term by the Court, and jut
4 meht given for plaintiff. Lewis B. Paul and |
(, sander May had bought drug store from MC
: ahau, and gave their notes for part payment
n The business was not making money, and N
6 sold out TO Paul Mr.. Paul was pressed
&c money, and as he had married q wife who
a q note of $4OO, be sold the store to her for
note. Monahan attached the goods as beloI
. ing to Paul g. May, and had them sold. IT
suit was brought to recover damages for {
k sale of the goods. The jury could not agI
and was discharged Hastings & Tripp