Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1870-03-09
Court Proceedings.

S
Monday and occupied the bench during
the week, for the special purpose OF dis.
posing Of some cases in which Judge
FUTILE had been Of counsel, or other
wise interested.
In the case Of Owen VS.. John the plain
tiff sought to recover damages claimed to
have been sustained by him by reason OF
certain alleged misrepresentation by de-
PENDANT in regard to the amount OF coal
in a piece of land in Hubbard upon which
was q coal lease held by defendant and
one Morgan. Plaintiff claimed that he
was induced to buy, at a high figure, an
interest in the coal and lease by reason
Of defendants representations as to
amount, &C., and that the bank turned
out poorly, and great loss ensued. The
defendant denied having made any false
representations, and insisted that in any
event, the plaintiff did not rely upon
what defendant said about the bank, but.
on the contrary, got his information from
others who had equal means of knowing
with defendant. A goodly array of wit
nesses were in attendance, and the case
was closely contested by F. E. Hutchins
and Judge Hoffman for the plaintiff and
Messrs. Taylor & Jones for the defend
ant, and resulted in a verdict on We'd
nesday for the defendant. Second trial
demanded.
The next case tried was that of David
Hall VS.. Henry Holcomb. Tt appeared
from the evidence that the defendant,
some three o. -four years since, shot q
valuable dog belonging to the plaintiff,
which the defendant thought he had
seen in his field where some sheep were
running, though the dog, If in the field
at all, had jumped again into the road
and was making for home when shot
The court ehargedth jury, in substance,
that if the dog had not been detected in
any mischief, but waH quietly pursuing
his own business-he was a hunting dog
or returning home, the defendant had
no right to kill him, and for the killing
would be liable for at least the value at
which the dog had been entered for tax
alton, viz: $500. The jury returned a
verdi for $500. Taylor & Jones for
plaintiff; Stun for defendant.
On Thursday the case of Milton Sutlif
VS.. RaIsa Clark was tried. Plaintiff sued
upon an account, running back through
several years, mostly for legal services
rendered defendant. Defence that plain
tiff did not own the account, that a part
had been paid, and that the statute of
Limitation had run against a part. Yer
dict for plaintiff Sls5.OO. Judge Sutlif
for plaintiff; Taylor & Jones for defend
ant.
VIM. n. Lewis VS.. Milton Sperry was
next tried. This case has been in court
over six years, having been tried In the
Common Pleas two or three times, and
to the District Court and back again on a
question of law. The plaintiff sued upon
several promissory notes, which the de-
PENDANT alleged were originally given to
one II. R: Beebe, for an interest in a pat
ent horse rake and the right TO make
and sell the rake in the State Of Iowa and
part Of Wisconsin; that the defendant
and Beebe thereupon formed a partner
ship for the sale of the rake, and defend
ant pursued that business for some time,
when, at Beebe's suggestion, the con-
tract was r~escinded, defendant made
over to Beebs all the interest he had ac-
quired in the patent, and sn papers ex-
cept the contract which he held because
tie notes, (which were, by the new
agreement, to be cancelledD were not
present; that Beebe neglected to deliver
the notes to defendant but sold them
to plaintiff long after due. Much
interest and feeling was manifest
ed on both sides, the plaintiff having
brought a witness from Iowa, IA. r.
Beebe, who by the way, was formerly a
resident of this county, much to the
surprise OF defendant and his counsel,
and the lawyers putting in their best
icks as well in the examination and
cross-examination Of witnesses IS il the
argument to the jury. Verdict on Fri
day for defendant. Hutehins & StuH for
plaintiff, Taylor & Jones for defendant.
The jury was next called upon to de-
eide a case between the Xxx of Levi
Sutlif VS.. M. Sutliff. Suit Was brought
to recover the value of a q. S. thousand
dollar bond claimed to have been bought
by defendant with money belonging to-
the estate represented by plaintiff. Yer
dict for plaintiff sl,l5O.57. Hutchins for
plaintiff, Judge Sutliff for den
On the same day, Friday, the case of
Admir- D. C. Forbes VS.. A. q G. W. R.
Co. was tried. The plaintiffs interstate
was an employee on the line Of the road
at the time OF his decesse, and died from
injuries received from the engine of one
Of the express Trains while running.
Forbes, with other hands, had been rum
ming a hand car on the track, under Or
ders. The smoke of an approaching |
train was discovered by the boss Of the
gang, who told the men to throw the
hand car of the track while he ran back
with a flag to stop the train, or check it
so that the track could be cleared. The
men were awkward and failed to get the
car OF in time, and the engineer on the
coming train, seeing that he would have
to meet the obstruction, thought it safer
to do it under fast speed than slow and
so whistled up brakes. and put on steam.
All the men stepped from the track as
the locomotive nesred them, but the de-
ceased failed to get clear out of the way
and so was struck and killed. The jury
seemed to think that the accident was
lsrgly owing to the carelessness Of de-
ceased and rendered a verdict for the
defendant. w. B. Porter and Ensign
for plaintiff; Stun and Judge Sutlif for
defendant.
This case closed the business for the
week, On Monday morning Judge
FUTILE again assumed the bench, and