The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-01-23

terday, and IN addition to numerous
demurrers, answers, replies, &c, sew
eral eases were disposed CT. n,
The first ease disposed of was that
of Hiram G. Nanny, Administrator of
the estate of John w. Grant, deceas-
ed, vs.. DIR. Runcie. DR.. Runcie and
Grant had been partners in a mill at
Millersburg. Runcie furnished the
money and Grant managed the bust
ness. Shortly after having drawn
$4,000 from the bank for business
purposes. Grant sickened and died
before all the money had been ex-
pended. At the time of his death
DIR. Runcie took possession of the
balance of the money. which was his
own, in fact. To recover this money
the action was brought by the admin
istrator, Nanny. A jury was empan-
neled and a portion of the testimony
disclosing the facts above stated, when
the ease was dismissed.
The case of Jacob Mann. 4. +.
Vaughn and Allen G. Halloek ct at.
va. William lei. Walker ct at, com
posing the City;Counoil of Evansville,
was taken up and disposed of. This
is the celebrated case brought against
the city to compel the removal of the
Fourth Street or Upper Market
House. It was tried by the court,
and Judgment rendered for the plain
tiffs. Judge johnson, in delivering
the opinion of the court says 1t is
| therefore considered by the court that
the market house mentioned In
the complaint, is a public nui-
~sance, and the court finds that, by
reason of the maintenance thereof
by the defendants, as the Common
Council of the City of Evansville, the
plaintiffs, whose lots abut on the said
Fourth Street, have sustained dam
age to the amount of One cent each;
land it is therefore further considered
and decreed by the court that each of
the plaintiffs recover of the defend
ants the sum of one cent as damages,
and their costs and charges by them,
about their suit in this be-
half, expended, and that the
defendants, in their official ca
pacity as the Common Council Of
the City of Evansville cause. the said
Market House to be removed from
said Fourth Street by the first day of
April next, and thenceforth be pro-
hibited from imcumbering or OBJ
structing said Street with the said
Market House. or any portion thereof,
to all which the defendants except
and pray an appeal to the Supreme
Court, which is. granted upon their
filing a bond In the penal sum of one
hundred dollars. executed by William
III, Walker and any Of the other de-
PENDANTS as security" JAS. G. Jones
for Plaintiffs. Asa Iglehart for de
The case of Franz Cader and Jor
seph Albaeker, vs.. Richard Raleigh
ct a., was also disposed of. This was
an action to GOV pay for certain
stone aud stone work, furnished Crist
and others, contractors, in building
the residence of the defendant, Raj
eigh, they having given him notice
that they would hold him responsible.
The defense set up was that when che
notice was served that he, the defend
ant. had already overpaid the con
tractors for the work done by them
under their contract. Tried by the
bGourt and Judgment for defendant;
exceptions taken aud ar appeal prayed
to the Supreme Court.
Robert Dixon VS.. Thomas Whited
was also disposed of. This was an
action for damages sustained on land
ing a coal boat. Tried by the Court.
Judgment for $57 20 in favor of the
plaintiff.
Then came the ease of Christian
Steiger and Henry Renting VS.. Fer
dinand Karges. Tried by the Court.
The evidence developed about the fol-
lowing facts: Steiger and Renting are
liquor dealers of Louisville, Ken
lucky. Steiger visited defendant In
the capacity Of drummer, and insisted
on selling him a stock of whisky. The
defendant declined buying. as he had
already sufficient on hand. Plaintiff
said he would send him some anyway,
and if he did not like it, he need not
take it, but could letit lie. The liquors
came consigned to defendant, who had
them hauled to his store, where they
remain subject to order of plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs preferring the money to
the whisky-the price having greatly
declined-brings this action to recover
pay, but we're disappointed. Buchanan
for plaintiffs; DENLY for defendant.
After hearing the testimony, the coun-
sci for plaintiffs dismissed the case.
Then came up a heavy case-James
Mel VS.. Anthony Understanding
the enormous amount of 81 20. 1t
appeared that Thiele held a Judgment
against Mel, In satisfaction of which
he agreed to take certain property and
also to pay costs Of suit in which the
Judgment was obtained. In closing
the matter up, it appeared Thiele got
off with 81 20 less costs than had been
calculated upon. giving him that mueh
more profit on the property taken to
satisfy the Indictment Neal fhnnrht he