Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1869-03-17
Court PrOeeedines.

Court Proceedings.
In the case of Rodwiek VS.. SPELL
man & Clark, referred to last week, the
Court decided adversely to the defend
ants claim of settlement by arbitra-
ton, but plaintiff having failed to
show by proof any substantial dam
age, only nominal damages were
awarded him. Judgement for plain
tiff six cents. Each party demanded
second trial.
The case of Richard S. Holten VS..
VIM. Rayen was tried to a jury on
Tuesday. Plaintiff claimed $500 fora
water wheel called the climax" put
by plaintiff into the mill of defend
ant; at Gir9rd. Defendant claimed
thai the wheel vas put in by plaintiff
as an experiment and made an agree
ment that if it did not work to de-
fendants satisfaction, plaintiff would
take it out and replace the old wheel;
that the "Climaxn did not work so
well as plaintiff had agreed, and in
deed worked so badly as to break q
portion of defendants gearing; that
though requested plaintiff did not
take out the new n and put back
the old wheel, and defendant alleged
damage in $500. The case was ex-
haustively tried and argued by Judge
SutIif for plaintiff, and Jno. F. Beaver
and Mr.. Taylor for defendant, and re-
suited in a verdict for plaintiff of fifty
cents. r
Erland Morgan VS.. S. Berg & Co.
was the next suit tried. This was an
appeal suit wherein plaintiff claimed
upon.an account for jewelry claimed
to have been sold defts Defendant
denied responsibility, the goods hav-
ing been sold 10 an agent who acted
outside of his authority. Verdict for
plaintiff for amount of his claim S59.-
SO. Fuller and Moses for plaintiff;
StulI for def.
The case of Chas. A. Baldwin VS..
Ezekiel F. Curtis, beard upon demur-
er to petition, attracted some atten-
ton owing to a somewhat novel ques-
ton raised. The suit is based upon a
note of which the following is a copy,
viz:
1926. For and in consideration of
"the surrendering to me of mote Civ
zen to the Clinton Line Rail Road
Company by me, Feb. 18th, 1856, for
"fve shares of stock in said Company,
(Which said note was payable in one
''year from date with interest, and
(which note was assigned by said
"CIinton Line Rail Road Company
"to Geo. A. Briggs, I promise to pay
''said Briggs or bearer the sun of $3.50
zone year from the 18th day of Feb'y
''next, or upon the completion of the
''grading of said Clinton Line Rail
"Road ready for the laying of the
"track, with interest at 10 per cent.
"per annum from and after tie 18th
"of Febiy, 1856. Parkman, Sept. Is,
1855. E. F. CURTIS"
The petition alleged that a reasona-
bic time had elapsed for the compile
ton of the grading of the road. and
the same had not been done, but had
been abandoned. Judge futile, in
deciding the demurrer, ruled that the
language, Tor upon the completion OF
the grading of said Clinton Line Rail-
road" &c, must be treated as express
sive of 6 time and not q condition &c
the payment of the note, and that
consequently, when plaintiff showed
that a reasonable time had elapsed fol
tsueh completion he was entitled tC
Judgment upon the note. Defendant
took leave to answer. Taylor & Jone:
for plaintiff, Hutchins & Glidden fol
defendant.
In the case of Peter Rush VS.. Grace
L. Mcconnell Ell. al, q Judgment wa
rendered against defendant J. S. Tod
and in favor of Grace 1. and A. C
! Mcconnell VS.. plaintiff. Taylor &
Jones for plaintiff, Hutchins & Gid
f den for defendants.
Freeman & Hunt VS.. Forrist & Hyd'
was tried to the court Saturday. Judg
ment VS.. Forrist in favor of plaintiffs
and against plaintiffs in favor of Hyd'
| for his costs. Plaintiffs demanded
: second trial. Ratlif and Glidden TO
= plaintiff, Mr.. Hyde in person for de
/. PENDANTS.
Saturday morning a SANDER cas-
, from Hartford was called up and trieC
to a jury. The plaintiff, Miss Saral
f J.. Flint, q prepossessing young lady
5 complained that the defendant Slmu
ell D. Fuller, a man in middle life, hat
a slandered her by telling that she had
( a child, &c. Defence that the remarl
4 was made by defendant as mer
rumor, and not with any intention t.
|, injure plaintiff. Proof of the exist
e ence of such a general report prevalen
] in Hartford about that time was in
: troduced by defendant, and proof tina
no such report was generally in circu
e latjon was introduced by plaintiff. F
e E. Hutchips, ESQ.,, appeared 70
plaintiff and opened the fasse to tn
jury. DEFENDANTS counsel Taylor
T Jones, declined replyingSand the cas-
went to the jury under the charge o