The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1870-11-10
Court OF common Pleas.

The fourth week OF the Court, and the last, un
less Judge Frease should hold over into next
draws t. a close, having disposed OF a great deal OF
miscellaneous business and tried a large number
Of jury cases n well AS some very important is
sues that were disposed Of without the interyen'
ton Of a jury
Among some important cases disposed Of are
Andrew Stark vs.. Robert A. Dunbar. In repley-
in. Judgment for defendant
William shafer vs.. Frederick stahl. Judgment
JOSIAH Pifer vs.. Charles o. Traphagen. In re-
plevin Judgment by default for The plaintiff.
Aurelia Banks VS.. Isaac r. Myers and wife. In
partition. Report Of committee approved and sale
ordered
Joseph weysandt vs., John Holbysen. Contin.
ued, with leave TO make new parties.
Joseph e.. Keith ct ux. VS.. Miner, Way and
Teeters. Judgment by confession for S2667 &C.
Jacob Sibila vs.. Mary Alberts. In partition,
Report Of committee approved, and deed ordered
Last week we mentioned the case of Oyster VS.
Welker, as one Of the most interesting Of the ses
sion, but as the argument was just then eommen'
cling, We were unable 10 report the result.
The OF counsel occupied about one
day, and after the charge ofthe court, the jury re
tired, and the next morning brought in a verdict
for plaintiff Of $500, the amount claimed being
The introduction of the testimony occupied
absat six days, with night sessions, aud in some
OF its details probably exceeded anything Of the
kind ever brought out IA our court. .
The plaintiff, Cyrus Oyster, was a farmer, resi-
ding in the east end of the county, with his wife
criminal conduct was not of a direct character
but was mainly circumstantial, and the fact that
defendant was frequently at plaintiffs house, and
The defendant denied on the stand any GRIMM
al intimacy, and claimed he went to PLAINTIFF
on plaintiffs invitation, and most always to dc
business with or for him. and stopped there sew
cral tit IS when in that part Of the country On his
own business, and being treated friendly by the
plaintiff, his wife and fainIy, he made some small
presents TO the wife and children as a r-turn FOL
the kindness he received from them, bat that he
presence OF the husband. This was admitted by
Oyster ON the stand.
was a letter written by Mrs. o and addressed Il
Wclker, In which strong sentimcuA- 81 regarC
and gratitude are expressed, aud complaining o.
/ the husbands cruelty, but there was no prooftha,
WciStr ever received IL or any like letter, IL having
been intercepted before Il reached him.
The evidence introduced for the defendant wa.
To- thc effect tina. he had nothing 10 do with Mrs
OS leaving home, that he did not know she wa
gone until some days after her departure, tina
at the time ia" lcff lac was In a distant part Of III,
country ON business, and that the Two little ooy'
/ who Sworc they saw q man looking like deft OF
the tram Mr.. -; went away on were mistaken a
20 the person II also appeared irum one OF ia
| plaintiffs Witnesses that Mrs, o. had been watch
ing an opportunity 70 escape from home for sew
eral days before she LETT, from which dcf'ts coun
| sci claimed a pre-arrangement between her anS
welker was Impossible Or highly improbable.
A number of witnesses testified as to the plain
tif'- treatment OF his wife dating back 10 tn
time Of their marriage, - years, from which /
seems he continually abused her, charging he
with lrwdneSs in the most revolving terms, AM
that az times he used personal violence on hsr.
Mrs. oyster testified tnat nO.hinS slinain@i h@'
/ ever lAA~RANF4 b@NNNNA . -AAA 80 - NAA-N So
len home on account OF her husbands treatment
The active business Of the Court this weel
opened with case Of the city of MAssillon agains
clement Russel. and John X. Dangler, treasu
rer OF the city The action VAS one, las We learn
ed from listening TO its trial. commenced nnde
the l59th section Of tho Municipal Code, ard hSl
its origin in = contract made by the c.ty wit
Bernard McCue, to grade, gravel and cinder PSI
feet Of Erie street south OF the railroad crossing
according TO certain specifications which wer
very fully set out in the contract Immediatel
on The letting Of the lob 70 MSCue he assigned
| 20 RnaaaII vyhO ~ the nra,f -hDwRd gave M NJ
tenti0n TO the work, but seemed 20 have surrer
dered his contract TO Col. o. G. Madison, a meplbe
who went on nddid the Eork-ths contract beal
ing date January u, 1859. AZ the election 70
members OF the city OF massillon, Col. Msdiso
Was defeated by s. A.. Conrad, who was mad
chairman Of the standing committee IN street
and alleys, and who looked after the Erie stree
road, and believed there was bad management /
the letting of the contract, and in the execution
Of il, and persisrently resisted all efforts to a'
cept the work or pay for il until Mr.. Russell, n
signee Of McCue, brought suit against the city
recover the amount due according TO the contrac
At the October Term in lS6s the case was con
tinued on motion of the city. AT the Februar
Term, Uhe city not being ready for trial.. mad
another motion to continne the case which I'll
Court overruled, and the city being wholly u
prepared for trial permitted a Judgment 10 /
taken against IL for the amount claimed, and in
mcdiately demanded a second trial and gave bon
as required by law, which vacated the judgmen
AID the case was put on the second trial dock
tor the May Term, ls7O, and was set for triS Q
the 18th Of May, the second day of the term, an
would have been reached and tried, both parts
being resdy.
on the 18th Of May, the city council, while Il
action Of Russell against tlse city was pending an
undetermined, passed = resolution to pay the e.
tire amount claimed by the plaintiff. On hearir
the fact that the council had thus voted, Mr.. FC
ger, the City Solicitor, applied for and obtained
Injunction under the general code and under n
section above referred to, and thus prevented Il
appropriation of the funds in this direction-tl
!, Injunction restraining the city treasurer fro
paying the order drawn by the clerk pursuant
the resolution Of the city council.
A. the May Term the injunction case was col
tinued, and Mr.. FOlger took leave TO amend ~
make new parties, and made Russell a defanda
With the treasurer, During the vacation, the i
sues were made up, Mr.. Russell denying generl
~ the allegations Of the p~etitonI Mr.. Dangl
answering that he had no interest In the case b
stood ready to abide the order OF the Court,
, which the city putin q reply reiteratiLg the all
gatious OF the petition as against Messrs. Russo
Madison and Beach, and the trial was
on Tuesday. A large number Of witnesses
both sides were In attendance, and on the closiI
Of the plaintiffs testimony the defendants NOV
for a nonsuit, which, after a lengthy argument
Messrs. Amber and McSweeney for, and Messl
Pease and Meyer contra, was granted.
Upon the ruling OF the Court we do not propO
10 comment Wetook no notes Of the somewh
lengthy opinion as We should have done, had
supposed that il would have summarily dispose
Of the case.
Upon the announcement of the decision, R.
Eolg~r. Fsu. nj once gave notice Of epnSqI n III