The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1870-11-24


Judgment on warrant of attorney for 81 1865 90
Jane s. Spencer vs. Samuel II. Carrick. Con-
tinued .......
Wilmuth A. Morris VS. John D, Williams
Continued.
Joseph Andres VS.. Louisa Kabisch ct al. Some
years ago, Albert Kabisch bought three Out-Lots
in jackson from the County Commissioners
He only paid $3.50 90 on the lots, and gave his
notes for the balance. He then died, leaving the
balance unpaid. The $3.50 90 which he had paid
had been borrowed, and his widow afterwards
paid this borrowed money, and Joseph Andres,
father of Mrs. Kabisch, paid up the balance.
This petition asked that the Commissioners be
ordered to convey one of the lots to Mrs. Kab-
isch, and the other two lots to Andres. The
Court ordered the conveyance to be made, as
asked in the petition. Longbon for petitioner,
Tripp for the Commissioners.
William Ripley VS.. Andrew j. Dever. Leave
to reply, and reply filed, and cause continued.
State of Ohio VS.. Charles Messer. Defendant
re-arrested, and gave bail for appearance at next
term, with Andrew ]. Wallace as security, in the
sum of one hundred dollars in each case
State of Ohio VS.. Henry Robinson Indictment
for selling liquor. Two cases. Defendant ar
raigned and plead not guilty, and gave bail for
his appearance at next term, in the sum of one
hundred dollars in each case, with Christian
Bertsch as security.
| State of Ohio VS., Amos Canter, Enoch Cunter
and Lorenzo Canter This was a civil action on
a forfeited recognizancc. Two of the parties had
! been tried in the Probate Court for Iarceny,and
were acquitted. Counsel for defendants asked
to have the amount of the bond remitted, as the
parties had beon found not guilty The court
RENTED all except the amount of costs made in
the Probate Court. These costs amounted to
! sos 90, and judgment was rendered for the bal
ance, SlO7 90. Jones for State Trlpp & DuHad-
way for defendant
Gerson David VS.. Andrew j. Dever. Judgment
by default for sS07 40.
Ambrose Scott, guardian, VS.. John H. Stephen
son and Amarillis Downey. Foster Tillcy is
very old man and during the past few years he
| has become imbecile in mind, His wife died a
few years ago. He owned eighty acres of land,
with house and orchard on one corner of it.
| Amarillis Downey was his daughter, and a
widow, without home. Mr.. Tilley told his
daughter that if she would come cd keep house
| for him, he would do moro for her than for his
other children. III February, 1866, he made a
warrantee deed to Mrs. Downey for fifteen
acres of the land, including the house and
orchard. Mrs. Downey gave her father a life
lease on the land, and then sold the land sub
ject to the lease, to Stephenson. Scott was ap-
pointed guardian for Tiley, and brought this
suit to have the deed set aside, on the ground
that Mr.. Tilley at the time of the execution of
the decd, had not the mental capacity to trans
act business.
The Court refused to set aside the Decd and
dismissed the petition at plaintiffs cost Du-
Hallway for petitioner, Laird for defense.
Joel Martin VS.. JAMES Plummcr This was an
action for slander. Plaintiff claimed one thou-
sand dollars, because, as the petition stated, de-
fendant had called him thief Martins sheep
got into Plummer's corn-fleld, about the tenth
of Juhe last, and destroyed six acres of corn.
Plummer went to Martin and told him about il,
and they got into quarrel, in which Martin
testified that Plummer called him an "orncry
thief" Plummer testified that he did not call
him thief but said he told him that his MAR
TINS neighbirs, said that he would steal. There
was considerable testimony as tc Martins repu-
tation for honesty, Verdict for defendant Tripp
and Hastings for plaintiff, MaclSley and Hutch
ins for defendant
In our report last week of the case of Ohio VS..
Gray and Caldwell, we stated that Caldwell had
sold the right to sell his patent in jackson
county to Harrison Nickel for $500. The terri
tory sold to Nickel embraced ten countless in
Guiding Jackson county,
William r. Morgan vs.John Burt The plain.
tiff Morgan, had q grocery In Jackson. He
owed $500 in Chillicothe. His creditors came to
see him, and took his note, and then transferred
the note to John Burt, the defendant. Burt then
bought out Morgan's stock of groceries, agreeing
to pay him $500 down, and the balance what
ever they might invoice, in certain time. The
goods were invoced, and possession given to
Burt, who went to selling the goods. When
Morgan called on Burt for the money, Burt pre-
sented the Chillicothe note, and rendered it in
payment. Morgan refused to receive the note
and said that he expected the money. He de-
manded the goods back, and Burt refused to give
them up. Morgan then brought suit for the
wrongful conversion of the goods. Counsel for
defendant claimed that Burt had got lawful
possession of the goods, and that the contract
was executed, and if Morgan had any cause OF
action, 1t would be on contract, and not in tort
The case was tried by the Court. The Court held
that Burt had got possession of the goods By
practicing fraud upon Morgan, leading him Ia
all the time Burt intended to pay Morgan in his
(Morgan's) own paper. Judgment for plaintiff
Second trial demanded and allowed, and bond
fixed at double the amount of the judgment
Laird and Trip for plaintiff, DuIIadway for
defendant.
Adam Martin s. JamesH, Darling ct al. Mar
tin Is the son-in-law of Darling. Tfeo@hed forty
acres of land and was in debt. He testified that
Darling, his father-in-aw, advised him to con.
vey his lands to his wife, to keep his creditors
from harrasslng him. He came to town to make
the conveyance, and went to Charles Rhodes
Notary Public to have him make the convey.
ance. Rhodes told him that he must first make
the deed to a trustee, and the trustee must make
the deed to his wife. The deed was then made
to Darling, as trustee, and Darling made the
deed to his daughter, the wife of plaintiff. Mar
tin testified that he did not make the conveyance
with the intention of defrauding his creditors
but to secure the property until he could pay his
debts. He said he did so wholly upon the per-
suasion of Darling.
On the other hand, Darling testified that he,
MARTINI, did it of his own free will.
The petition asked that the conveyance be sci
aside. The Court dismissed the petition at
plaintiffs costs, remarking that the act of Mar
| ~