The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1869-07-24
Circuit Court.

has been as follows:
hober vs.. Adamson-attachment. Adamson
was indebted to Kober for certain miscellaneous
articles, including number of watches. He
failed to pay for them and made fraudulent
sale to his brother Kober was not to be 40
easily swindled, however, and sued ont an attach.
ment and succeeded in recovering portion Of
the watches and gold chain.
The jury returned verdict of $113 for the
plaintiff. t
Follett for plaintiff. Hough for defendant.
The case of Butterfeld and Swarthout VI. Nc
Cullom on action Of trespass. This case arose
out of an old distraint illegally made by the de-.
fendant upon the property of the plaintiffs at a
farm rented from him by them some few miles
from Marseilles McCull ON was beaten on the
distraint by its having been made when no rent
was due, and also by tho amount claimed being
enormously set forth. The tenants them com.
menced this action, which lasted from Thursday
until Saturday of last week, and was then con-
cluded by verdict Of $3.50 for the plaintiffs.
A motion for new trial was entered, and the
argument thereon concluded on Monday morning.
Mr.. Gray maintained that the verdict was ex.
cessive, that the value Of the property did not
exceed s3O0 and that the verdict should be set
aside.
Mr.. Bushnell maintained that there was sufii.
cient malice proven to warrant the jury in giving
punitive or vindetvs damages
The court considered that the grounds alleged
were sufficient to entitle the defendant to new
trial, and after careful analysis Of the various
items of damage, he decided that unless the
plaintiffs consented to accept verdict for $3.50
he should grant new trial
Mr.. Bushnell took time TO consult with his
clients.
Bushnell & Avery for plaintiffs Gray for de-
fendant.
The case of Gilman, King 4 Hamilton vs. c.
r. l. g. P. r. r. next cam. before the court
This was an action based upon the replevin Of
some horse rakes shipped BY one named Mussey
from jacksonville to Ottawa Il appeared that
Hamilton had some time previously been to
jacksonville, and had there been told BY Musssy
that there were $50 Of charges upon the rskes.
Subsequently the firm wrote to Mussey and told
him 10 ship them 10 Ottawa and collect from the
railroad the back charges. They shippedEhe
goods by Toledo. Wabash & Western Railroad,
and collected $76.75, instead of $50. G. K. &
H. refused to pay the amount but rendered $50
for back charges and the amount Of the freight.
The railroad company refused N accept the
amount rendered, hence tbs present action
The court held that Mussey was the agent Of
G., X. & Fl. in the transaction, and that, there
fore, they were bound by his sct
Under instructions the jury rendered YER
dict of not guilty
u Plaintiffs counsel entered motion jor q new
trial.
d. P. Jones for plaintiffs Glover, Cook s.
Campbell for defendant.
The case of Baker Us. Gibson was next taken
up. It was to recover for some buckwheat, and
terminated in verdict for the plaintiff, with
damages of $10S.75.
Gum & Crawford for plaintiff Shepherd &
Butler for defendant.
In the case Of Berne vs.. Gibson, Mr.. Bull, Of
counsel for plaintiff, allowed Mr.. Hough 10 take
q non-suit.
The case Of Bor.hsenius vs. Nels Nelson, IT,,
and Rabe Nelson, all the parties being residents
of the town of Mission, was case OF slander,
originating out Of spurious bottle Of Cologne
water sold by plaintiff to defendant for dscora.
ting Christmas tree. 1t was shown that Mrs.
Nelson had strong dislike to Borchsenius on 90
count Of his selling liquor, and this bottle of
spurious Cologne gave her the coveted chance Of
injuring him in his business, which she did by
proclaiming that he was oheater in his business.
The declaration alleged that the defendant Mrs.
Nelson spoke Of the plaintiff concerning his bus.
mess as merchant, and spoke the following
words: "You are william, you are rascal, you
are cheater.' The declaration also alleges loss
of business thereby, without specifically naming
any of the customers who had ceased to trade
with him on that account
Defendant plead the general issuA
Mr.. Gray insisted that although these were
not actionable words per Sc, yet when spoken Of
a merchant concerning his business they were
actionable words, if the speaker meant to impute
dishonesty in his business as merchant, and 90
to have her hearers understand it {; that in such
case it was not necessary to allege or prove
special damages but he was entitled to recover
damages the same as if the words spoken were,
in law, actionable perS.
Mr.. Cook insisted that these words were not
actionable ut law, and were only actionabls
when coupled with the declaration of the speak.
er; shat he was rascal, william and chsater
in his business-the application made In that