The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1870-06-16

COURT PRoCEEDINGs.-CouTt commenced on
Wednesday evening Of last week, Judge Plyley
presiding. The case OF Limeston Furnace came
up on Thursday morning, and lasted all day.
The following lawyers from Portsmouth were on
hand, representing the various interests Of cred
itors Moore, Hutchins, Towne, johnson and
Harper. Nearly oil the resident lawyers had
some interest in the matter. The order OF the
Court was that the debts made by the Receiver
have a preference over the general creditors,
and must be first paid. These debts, with few
preferred ones, are TO be paid In proportion to
money to be distributed, or that they are on an
equality. Mr.. Bundy claimed that those credit
ors who had been paid on old debts, could be
made refund enough to pay up the creditors Of
the Receiver in full. The Court did not find 1t
necessary now TO decide this point.
In the case OF Orange Furnace it was decided
to let the Furnace run during the present year.
Lucius Reed VS. George Rubrecht ct al. This
was an action for damages for assault and batte-
ry. The defendants were the keepers of groee-
ry and eating house near the Depot, and plaintiff
and his son were in there, and the young man
was having some difficulty with some person.
Defendants did not deny striking the plaintiff
with club, but they say he was taking part
with his son in the fuss and refused TO leave the
house when ordered so to do. Plaintiff denies
any misconduct ON his part The jury gave a
verdict of $4,000. Laird & Trlpp for plaintiffs;
DuHadway for defense.
Samuel Mosbarger VS.. David Lewis & Co. The
real dispute in this case was about the size Of q
wagon bed in which plaintiff had delivered
defendants 100 loads of charcoal The
jury gave a verdict for portion of Plaintiffs
H,fo 4.
$780, DuHadway for plaintiffs; Hutchins and
MaclSley for defendants,
Louisa Foley vs. Thomas Foley This was a
petition for divorce and alimony, charging will
full absence for more than three years. There
were quite large number of witnesses examin-
ed on both sides. Decree for divorce with 900
alimony, chargeable upon real estate of defend
ant. Petitioner restored to her former name,
and decreed the custody of her child. Mackley
and Laird for petitioner; DUNCAN and DuIIad-
way for defendant.
Leonard Cook VS.. Louisa Cook. This was
petition for divorce, charging adultery. Divorce
refused on the testimony offered, but case left
open for further testimony DUNCAN for Petit
toner.
Edward Hunt, Administrator of James Hunt,
VS.. Thomas Owens A note was found among
the papers of James Hunt deceased, payable by
Owens. On this the administrator brought suit.
Owens claimed that the note was given to in
demnify Hunt for becoming docket bail for Ow-
ems, and that Owens had paid Off the judgment
for which Hunt had been his bail. Tried by the
Court. Judgment for defendant. DulIadway
for plaintiff; Trip for defendant.
. Isaac I. Monahan VS., Levi DUNCAN and others.
This was an action to recover some $40 for print
ing tickets. posters &C., in the year 1867, for the
Democratic Central Committee Tried by the
Court. Judgment for plaintiff for amount
claimed. Laird for plaintin; DuHadway for de-
PENDANTS.
Thomas Butler VS., Williamson Scurlock. Suit
brought to recover for damage that plaintiff
claimed that defendant had agreed to pay him
asdamages in an ore contract Tried by the
Court. Judgment for defendant. DUNCAN for
plaintiff; Tripp for defendant.