Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1870-11-16

NANAA ANNNNeAEA
The case Of John Brown vs.. J. q. But.
Ter. Jr., on trial when our report OF last
week closed, was a suit brought to re-
cover FOR damages alleged to nave been
p sustained by plaintiff by reason OF de-
fendant's failure TO fulfill a contract to
D give plaintiff a position in some iron
works at indianapolis, plaintiff having
a been induced by the promise Of deten-
dsnt 70 take stock in the concern. The
Jury disagreed. Ratlif & Moses for
plaintiff; Gen. Sandsrson and Judge
GIidden for defendant.
, Edward L. Abel vs.. orthniel Brooks
vss tried TO = 81 on the 9th. This
: case was reported II a former trial Yer
dict on the 10Th for plaintiff, for Sz-6-8
Hutcbins, GIidden & Stull for plaintiff.
]. F. Beaver for defendant.
The next jury csse tried WIS that OF
Fitch against Thomas, known As the
aHeifer case" It involved the title To a
heller. worth perhaps fifty or sixty dol
lars. The case was originally CONNER c.
ed before a Justice Of the Peace in 1850
when it resulted in a judgement for the
Z plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.
It was then tried in Common Pleas
March term 1866, and resulted in a YER
diet for plaintiff. On motion the verdict
was set aside and a new trial given.
February term 1865, another trial was
had and verdict for defendant rendered.
This was also, on motion, set aside, and
a new trial granted. At the June term
1859, the case was again tried and the
jury failed to agree. At this trial a YER
dict was rendered Tor the defendant foI
f5O.50. It is supposed that this result
will terminate the litigation. The costs
have run up to = large figure, perhaps
rom $500 to 500, and attorneys fees to as
much more. Rather an expensive
heifer.
A hGbedS corpus case was tried to the
Court on Friday, which ELECTED much
interest. Jasper E. Struble asked for
the custody of the minor child Of him
self and Alemine Suuble his wife, de-
tanned 10y the wife and her iather Benz.
Bush, the husband and wife having
separated. Testimony a. to the fitness
OF the father and mother respectively 10
take care or the child, and argument
from L. c. Jones, Esq, for the applicant
and F. E. Hutchins, ESQ, for the re-
sp~ondants, was heard, and the Court
earnestly recommending the parties to
come to some amicable arrangement ~
10 the child, reserved 3 decision until
later in the term.
The case Of Alexander Mcconnell vs..
ThOs. j. MeLain, libel, was commenced
to a jury on Friday and concluded Satur-
day. The plaintiff claimed damages in
the modest sum Of $4,000 by reason o:
the writing Of two letters by the defen-
dsnt, addressed to Hon. Hugh MeCul-
Tough, Secretary OF the Treasury. the
first dated September Z, 1855. and the
other September Is, 1865. 1t appears
that at the time these letters were writ.
ten the plaintiff was an applicant for ap-
pointment 10 the Office Of Supervisor OF
Internal Revenue for the Northern Dis
trict Of Ohio, for which Office, il would
seem, a son Of the defendant was also an
applicant. The first letter, as claimed
by the plaintiff, stated in Substance 'that
the telegraph that "R. p.
"Spalding OF Cleveland is in Washing
"t0n pressing the nomination Of A. Me
"COunell for Supervisor for Northern
Ohio" calling upon the department not
to approve q man who during the war
spent his time in the service Of the
COnfederacy, casting cannOn aud other
~war material" and calling attention 10
the~fact that the writer'sasOn "was with
the UniOa army wilh-a Eusket in his
hand and that Garfield recommended
him for the place. The first aus OF
action was based upon this letter.
The second letter, rs claimed by plain
tiff, was in substance as follows: els
there not danger Of your being imposed
"upOn in relation to the appointment OF
supervisor Of the Northern Ohio dis
"trict? Mcconnell Of Cleveland is the
same man who was Assessor in the 18th
District for a short time, and you know
"Uf his business tact by this time. Save
e'this district from such disgrace"
Plaintiff failed 10 get the appointment
and now claims that the writing Of these
letters had much to do with his rejec-
ton.
The defendant denied that the first
letter was as claimed by plaintiff;
claimed that the copy given was not 3
true copy; that the Cleveland papers of
day the letter was written did contain a
auloulCAuB AuaL MI 0HalAlnE
was pressing the appointment Of a. W.
Mcconnell for the place; that the letter
written by him related to said A. W.
Mcconnell IA son of plaintiff Of whom
it was generally believed and by de-
PENDANT believed, that the statements Of
the letter were true. and not to A. Nc
COnnell, and If the letter was omit
ted in the letter written it was by over
and mistake and not Intentionally
omitted. As 10 the second letter de-
PENDANT admitted the writing, but denied
that it was libelous or acti0nable in law.
The jury found upon the FIRST u in
volVing the first letter, for the defendant
On the second cause, involving the
letter, the verdict was for the
plaintiff, and damages assessed st S675.
Motion for new trial is pending on part
Of defendant. Taylor and Ensign for
plaintiff Hutchins, Glidden & Stul for
defendant
The Grand Jury was in session all the
week, adjourning on Saturday. A large
mass Of business was dispatched. Over
forty indictments. the most Of them for
violation OF the liquor law, we're found. /
Monday and Tuesday Of next week
set apart for trial Of State cases.