Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1871-06-14

AL NbNLA4NA " HAaAAsALu ALN
house being put in at $500. and the
barn at 500, and that subsequent to the
fire the lot and barn were sold by plain
til for $500. The main part Of the build
ing burned was shown to have been
erected in 1884 for a shop, and used some
Of the time for years as a cooper shop,
and some Of the time IS a wagon shop.
About twenty years since it was altered
and enlarged, and since then used alter
nately Is dwelling and hotel. The plain
tit introduced twenty witnesses as to
value Of building destroyed. One man
said it was worth $500. He lives in
Fowler, and attended dances at the tsv-
ern twenty years ago. One put the value
at Sl,2O0; another the rental value at
$1,000, and cash value at $500, and the
others ranged from $500 to SI,IOO. De-
PENDANT introduced twenty-six witnesses
as 70 value, three Of whom were carpen-
tiers and had worke ed on the building;
three others had helped raise the house
originally, and three others had owned
the property. Three put the value from
$500 &C 500, eight put it at 5000, eight at
$500, i've at from $500 to 5000, and two
at from $500 to $500. Verdict on Thurs
day, for plaintiff, for SIS. At the for
mer trial, at last November term, YER
dict was rendered for plaintiff, fOESs66.
Glidden and Stun for plaintiff; Taylor
and Spear for defendant.
On Thursday afternoon the case Of
Jacob Williams VS.. J. B. Dunlap and
others was taken up. Suit brought upon
a note for $3.50, dated June 9th, 1858,
made by defendant Dunlap to order Of.
Packard, Cook & o., and endorsed,
Packard, Cook 4 Co.. At February
term judgment was taken in favor Of
plaintiffs, pro lorna, and second trial
demanded by defendant, Warren Pack
ard, who alone defended at the trial.
Defence, that the Endorsement was an
accommodation Endorsement the firm
Of Packard, Cook & Co. having no inter
est in the note, which was known to
plaintiffs agent, through whom the
money was loaned to Dunlap, at the
time Of the making Of the note; that
the Endorsement was made by B. F.
Packard, who had no authority to in
dorse the firm name upon such paper,
and was made without knowledge or
~consentof Warren Packard. Verdict on
Friday for defendant Hunter for plain
til; Spear and Taylor for defendant
Two cases were next tried to the Court,
one entitled Ohio VS.. Kibbee and others,
and the other Ohio VS.. McQuiston and
others, wherein Thomas McQuiston,
who had been bail for the appearance
OF Kibbee and Charles McQuiston,
sought to obtain an order setting aside
the forfeituTes entered at a former term.
II appeared that in the case Of Kibbee
the defendant was eventually arrested
and tried, and that in the other case the
defendant was in attendance the day
after the bail was forfeited, and had
since at all times been ready for trial,
but not tried. In the first case the Court
ordered the forfeiture aside, and took
the other under advisement.
The Grand Jury was discharged on
Friday, having presented indictments
against divers persons for sundry
offences.
The case Of Administrator Of John
Rogers vs.. John Lamb, tried to the
Court, on Saturday, presented a nice
question Of law, based upon substan-
tally the following facts: Some years
since the defendant residing here,
bought by article, Of plaintiff interstate,
a tract Of land at Fort Smith, Arkansas,
giving notes for deferred payments
The notes not being paid, q proceeding
was commenced in the county where
the land is located, under which the
land was sold and the proceeds applied,
after payment Of costs, in satisfaction Of
plaintiffs claim, but fell far short of
paying it. Defendant had no personal
notice Of the tendency Of that proceed
ing. This suit is brought to recover the
amount remaining due on the notes.
Plaintiff claims that the suit in Arkan-
sas was strictly 4 proceeding against the
land, having for its object the subjecting
Of defendants interest in the land to
payment Of the debt against ii, and that
plaintiffs right Of action for balance due
on the notes is in no way affected by
that proceeding. The defendant main
tains, on the contrary, that the stipuls-
tons Of the article are dependant, the
right to recover the purchase money
depending upon the ability and readi-
ness Of the plaintiff to make to defend
ant a title to the land, which being now
beyond the power Of the plaintiff, he
can have no csuss Of action upon the
notes. Decision reserved. Taylor &
Jones for plaintiff; Hutehins and Gid
den for defendant
Elizabeth Beach vs.. Henry Beach, d.
Torce, was tried, and prayer OF petitioner
granted. Stull for petitioner; Taylor
for defendant.
The cast Of Junius Dana VS.. Levi G.
Sutlif was commenced to the Court
Saturday, and is upon trial as our report
closes. T~hequestion at issue involves
title to q small strip OF land west Of
Dana's Musical Institute building.
Criminal business is expected TO be
taken up next week.