The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1870-07-14

Deen elnplOyeu W aSsiSI the rOSeCuIlnS
Attorney in two cases against Mr.. Ran
kin.
On the 81 day of November, 1864,
| published the following:
"Court adjourned on Tuesday of last week.
There was little business transacted of a general
interest. The prosecution failed in all the liquor
cases except those of Michael Stanton, of Berlin
and Washington Thacker, of Raysville. They
were convicted"
On the 9th day Of March, 1865, l
published the following:
"CoURT PRocEEDINGs-Th Grand Jury re-
mained in session nearly four days. adjourning
on Friday afternoon. They found 70 indictments
John j. Parks was indicted for murder in the
second degree, for the killing of Shockey. No in
dictment was found against Ann Grady, for the
stealing of Mr.. Roberts pocket-book.
The following cases We're tried:
State of Ohio VS.. William Rankin. Selling
liquor to minor. July trial. Verdict not guilty.
--McClintick & Machley for the State, Tripp
Clark for defense.
q room, &c. Jury trial. Verdict guilty. This
case will be taken up. McClintick q Maczley for
the State, Tripp Clark for defense,
State of Ohio VS.. Nicholas BaSquill. Keeping
q room, &c. Jury trial. Verdict not guilty. Nc
CHnticll for the State, DUNCAN. Fullerton and
Macltley for defense.
y.
vorce. The petition charged that defendant had
been guilty ofadultery. Divorce granted. Dun
gan for Petitioner.
Mary Henstine VS. Edward Henstlne. Petit
ton for Divorce. The petition charged that de-
fendant had bocn wllfully absent for more than
three years. Divorce granted DUNCAN for Pc
titioner.
Catharine Hoenis vs.. Peter Uocnls. Petition
for Divorce. The petition charged that defend
ant had been wilfully absent for more than three
years Divorce granted. Maclley for Petitioner.
Smith
Divorce. The petition charged that defendant
had committed adultery In the city Of Columbus
yorce granted. Mackley for Petitioner,
James N, Hanna vs.. Eliza Hanna. Petition
| for Divorce. The petition charged extreme cru
| city against the defendant The evidence show
| ed that defendant made an attempt to shoot
| the PLAINTIFF and declared that she would shoot
him, or that If he ever attempted to live with her
again, he would never live to get back to the
| army. Divorce granted. Tripp for Petitioner.
| Thomas PlummerVs William III. Palmer. This
| was jury trial. Some years ago, Mr.. Plummel
| bought from Alexander Grafton, the property
| known as "Ihe American House, in Jaekson.--
| Afterwards Pummer discovered that there wa,
q mortgage upon the property, and he refused tt
take IL lawsuit resulted, at the termination
| of which Plummer was compelled to take thu
| property. During the time suit between Grafton
and Plummer was in court, Palmer occupied tho
| house, and after Plummer was compelled to taxi
| the property, he demanded rent from Palmer
which the latter refused to pay, claiming that ht
held the property under n contract with one q
| David.
The jury could not agree in this case, and wer,
| discharged
McClintlcls & Fullerton for plaintiff, Dungar
| q Clark for defendant.
In the case of the State vs. Rankin, the defend
ant was fined $4,000 and costs"
Now | most solemnly declare thai
the two cases of tho State vs.. Rankin
are the only ones where / recollect
or where any record shows, that l was
opposed to Mr.. Clark as counsel Ant
it will be seen that he beat me in the
small case, but that in the one of the
greatest importance / beat him, and
that Mr.. Rankin was fined $4,000 ant
costs.
But on the same 9th of March, 1865,
| published the following:
"One day last week there was liquor case triet
| In the Court of Common Pleas of this county, II
which Milton l.. Clark, ESD, was one of the coun
| sci for the defendant. MIR. Clark Is very learn
cd man, If we are to believe his own assertions
| for he told the Court that he knew n great dea
| about criminal law, although the Court very sum
| marily Oyerruled the point which he raised II
| the case, Mr. Clark took occasion to say tina
! tho county OF Jackson Is the only place In thu
State whore there Is any attempt made to en-
! force the liquor law and that said law Is ONLY
| an evidence of u temperance tanatcism whicl
| spread over tho State few years ago, lie snit
| that there had boen no liquor case in Ross coun
| ty during the past ton years, and that said law
is not enforced in Chtllicothe, or Columbus, o
| any where on The Bottom. Most dcvOuty ough
| we to thank Mr. Clark for coming from the bot
| tom, where hogs and whisky are products, nnt
| teaching the benighCd people Of Jackson county
i lV
rights hopo the people ofJncksOn county vii
| send for Mr.. Clark, and employ him to lectur
on the dangers Ofthelr mnatical tendency.
! But, seriously, am alwaySSOny to hear MAJ
of Mr.. ClarI's talent attempt to stir up the wOrs
class Ofcommunity to violate the laws of tn
| land. hold that tevery man of talent and In
| luence, should exert that talent and influence
| ON the side of morality, Inv and order nOttcet
oil the liquor sellers, drunkaTdS and gambler
who were In the Court Room at the line, wer
! highly delighted with the remarks of the clio
| quont attorney. Mr. Clark has n right to maxi
amy kind ofan argument he chooses, when man
aging case In court but when he chooses e
! hcutiun ofCVcry bad man In the community,
claim the right to call the attention OF the pub
| le to the dangerous tendency ofpermitting suci
| arguments to go unrebukod.
The people ofJnclison county may be the wors
| fanatics In the State, but they are law abidln,
people, only when led astray by such appeals a
that made by Mr.. Clark, ID. Nj"
| marked that article plainly will
pen and ink, and sent the marked copy
of the Standard to Mr., Clark at th'
time of its publication, l. have seer
him at nearly every term of our Court
since that time, aud he has never, up tC
this day denied that gave fair state
mont of his argument in this particular
In that article speak of Mr.. Clark as
man of eloquence, talent and influence
When l said, two weeks ago, that il
would bO a disgrace TO run such a maj
for Judge, / should not have said SC
without further explanation, never
accused Mr., Clark Of doing anything
disgraoeful, dishonorable o.
untruthfl What meant was, that I
man for that exalted position shoul,
have reverence for law. Here Mr.
Clark abandoned the facts in the case
and appealed to tho jury to disregard
their Oaths, because the law, in certain
localities, was unpopular The womer
OF this place, at least some of them, ha'
terrible grievances, and still think tina
II 4 1. A 4. III Al. -