, 1870-06-17
Superior Court.
NATJTINNt EEfIrf0A.

!ECHueuL Ing pta!nuu Ec{'Eeseilttu ulAt ue Was
In the course OF his business, being at Morrison,
i'll. he purchased hogs to the value Of q, 100,
which hc shipped 70 Chicago, whEte
hls partners [who were originally Included IN the
suisi, on statement that rlaluttI herr was about
tug and delaying Creditors Plaintiff recovered
The ncEs, at sunle. considerable cost, aud suisse
quent1y the attachment sut being tried, be gained
the sur,clpe Court. The Jury found defendant
Euli1y, anu assesSe0 1ac damage AZ $.VM
,,,.,, fh"1hsf fIatIsG.1h olsoLssn. 1,-r,-, n,
..,s r o1 stepaen ME- M
s. 1 , N tae r. n'4as pTmo.n9. an sa
d 10 d. business AZ NJ ii STATE m stices % uaril
sT,., .s ,1 mmen o.as"auoN W Ky ptoc.ss
" sa y VI sN 81 ~. atln..u nas
M ~ ~ a.. sd - - :. aHa
e*eds. INV : ., ,;,a ,.,.. 4''''''N - ~
Jr,a,.A E,nVic n E,ev., n,rn.,s pa,tt,on7
4nr .iorIct n .a thc fc1InMinv real csfa%c. ~
nsk 10; ntnAe 144Sn 1, to' ~ nssk ,ior ~ h'n
W,9sr ~ X r;nstaa' ~ ~ aHrittas IL n,anr ss
Ktnzes Addition. East haii Of Lot !. Bioct i.
Etr-,sp aiStti1n Sa.+h rr;,+e.,x n--.s = ~ 49,,
., hif ~ ~ .eha. ..nt - r, T. az az
eas, ~ nay " ne noteneast aaas@t u Secu2n ~
Tsur scrtS Of the east af of ths ,5rfheast
t 81 sec{aon = ~ y het hosH 81 hlazss A s'
cast half ot The northeast quarter Of Section 70
SS' Ia ess. ,,,,,..,
,hor,., S,o-,r,1 ". NE ~ ,vuu.r1 n ,,~,
snrI m. -ns,.s - r. osr Cta ~ -. IT.
t1 a. s.n ,,a =! w MGsh ~ Eni ~
~ .rsstng asoessnsnie ~ w t,,e t.r fnr 1sss ant
1888. -.
c,sr.~1 11,a,-.wana =, ~ <,7,,.~,-,o,, p,,,
- CnMGs r1!it WI q ~. ton,ss Wouu. hea
ce3 tnte,t.;nesa ~ q ~, NJ ond Mr,f ~
suet' as against nonresident
,--o
ls63TT.
TEE LATE Mr. c,H. BES7.
Estate Of Charles IL Hunt Ecouora Hunt
ss
ihow the estate to conEst OF household futu
ture- 900: eAoats in aetion kc, ooo unt fort
acres Of land In the county, valued 1t tsQO0 bon
III the sum Of &10O, 900 was taken.
GUARDIANSHIP.
Estate Of William Phclan. Catharine Phelar
Mathew ]. Phe1an, under bond of $50 900. De
crasetl left lands, lot IS, Block IL South
Rrhnch Addition: sonth half OF Lot 10, Block 1e,
fchool Section addition: $50 feet square, On ii
corner OF Twelfth and Is!Dwn strtcts: Lots 8,
II. and IS, FLOCK 6, Brands Addition; tWo-ihiId
oa 4 1o % l ns4a Dfanf ~ II IN
ADMINISTRATION.
Estate Il Alexander McFatlsnc. Joseph y. Bal
bond Of q, COO.
Estate Il Robert Thomas. Declared settled.
pa.,rsor.. c,,~+
1eeo1ues eoo1t'
HAREAs coRrEs
The People eK rcl MARY Letgtr :. George Leige
This y IS wr1t OF h6ceus eoTFus. by which relatt
Sought TO obtain the cust6tfy anh control Of an IL
1"ut son. George Letger. aged years, from II
father. The parties were divorced Eorne tin
Elnce, md, by the decree, the control OF the 10
WA awarded to relA&pt. In her petition, eh
aimed that her late husband NOT only Withheld
tic child from her but refused to allow her to &C
him.
The return OF defendant sct up thnt he II II
father OF the child In dlspnta, and had him in h
n.stotly Al the date o! tile servlce OF tue wr1
fie stated that, week after the .:ate Of deere
OF divorce rendered, The rclator, It's mother. can
+, his residence and took The boy. This was
November, 15Ga She took the child 10 pl1c
~heTc She w8s living, distant from his HON
about three quarters OF mile Two dars thert
after. he WIS passing In the vicinity standing upo
railroad track, uncared for and unmatched, in
DANGEROUS place and crying bitterly because b
could not nnd lis fathers house. Under, thes
circumstances he took the child home, where h
ha3 since kcpt him. Abont 4 week after tns
time. At the request uf his late wife, he went
I u solicitors once, wherc It was AGREED that /
kLuulu retain tnt osi}d allowing Its mother to *
him, she relinquiAhInE the weekly Allowant
awarded her for the support OF the child u
claimed, In addition, that rt2tor ia undt pcrsu
IL have the custody Of tho child inasmpcA as st
IL living nj Service, moving from place. auds thcr
fore. having no permanent benc He stated this
during seven monihs she nan resided In st ioui