Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1871-03-15

the notice, such as it was, was received
by them, but claimed that it was no
such notice, as, under the statute, is suf
hcient to release a surety. The statute
as quoted by counsel, appears to provide
that whenever a person has becamt
bound as surety on a note on which
action has accrued, he may require By
notice in writing, the creditor forthwith
TO commence an action against the prin.
cipal debtor, and proceed with due dill
gence, in the ordinary course Of law, Z,
recover judgement and max the money
by execution, and il the creditor fails K
comply with the requisition he shall
forfeit all right to recover Of the surety
The law and facts were i~ngeniously anG
ably argued by Judge Glidden for the
plaintiffs and by Mr.. Taylor for Stewart
The Court held the notice not sufficient
under the statute, and rendered judg.
ment against all defendants. Stewart
by Attorney, excepted to the ruling, and
announced intention of prosecuting q
writ of error to a higher court.
H. A. Seabrook VS.. Sarah Ballard ct al,
tried to the Court on Tuesday, is a suit
brought to Cow on a mortgage exc.
cuted by the defendant, Sarah Ballard, q
married woman, and her husband, to S.
J. Campbell, and by him assigned to
plaintiff. Previous to the making of the
mortgage Mrs. Ballard bought Of Camp
bell some land at Mineral Ridge, paying
a considerable portion OF the purchase
money down, the same being her sepa-
rate properly. A deed Of the land was
executed to her by Campbell, and on the
same day, and as part Of the same trans
action, Mrs. Ballard made her individual
note for the balance of the purchase
money due, and, with her husband, also
executed a mortgage on the premises
At g former term, upon petition praying
judgment on the note and order to sell,
the Court held no cause Of action. Leave
was taken to amend petition and the case
tried al this term upon amended patition
and facts proven as substantially Stated
above. Decree rendered for plaintiff fol
amount claimed, and order to sell the
lands. Mrs. Ballard gave notice ofappeal.
Judge Glidden for Plaintiff; Judge SUIT
lift for defendant.
In the case of John W. Brooks VS.. The
Germania Insurance Co. ct al, reported
two weeks since, the Court rendered q
decision finding that plaintiff was not en-
titled to any portion of the reward; that
the defendant, John h. Dewitt, and the
agents Of the Insurance Company, hay
ing shown substantially equal diligence
in furnishing information which led to
the arrest and conviction of the incendi-
aries, were entitled to divide the reward
Of $500, one-half to Dewitt and one-half
to the others, and rendered Judgment &C.
cordingly. Notice of appeal given
Judge Glidden for Brooks and the Insu-
rance Company; Taylor for Dewitt.
The case of Milton Sutlif VS.. VIM.
Lindsey ct al, tried to the Court, was a
proceeding to obtain a perpetual injune-
ton against the cutting and removing of
timber from lands in Vernon, on which
plaintiff had a mortgage. The case was
sharply contested and ended in a decree,
notallowing the injunction, but substan-
tally giving plaintiff security, and rea-
sonably satisfactory to defendants. The
facts are too complicated and not of suf-
fcient general interest to warrant mi
mute report. Judge Sutlif for plaintiff;
Hutchins for defendants.
The case Of Mary F. Hall VS.. Junius
and VIM. H. Dana, was continued on
motion of the defendants, after muck de-
bate and persistent effort on part ofplain-
tifTs counsel TO bring it to trial at this
term. Some curiosity has been mani
tested regarding this case, and our re-
porter has been requested to give state
nent of the cas- as now made, but, ins
asmueh as the issues may be materially
changed before the case is tried. and as
our reports are intended 10 reflect the
public proceedings Of the court, which
are open to every spectator, rather than
the allegations Of parties before trial, it
is not deemed proper to comply with the
request.
On Thursday several criminal cases
were tried. Jno. ". Murray and Jona-
than Dunlap, indicted for keeping rooms
ofpublic resort where intoxicating liquor
is sold in violation of law, were tried and
found guilty. Motion for new trial on
part Of Dunlap OVerruled, with sugges
ton from the Court that the Prosecuting
Attorney might with propriety enter
noUe ProSeqUi, which was done. Murray
was then sentenced to 20 days in jail, to
date from March 9Th, and pay costs.
Ohio VS.. John Green, indicted for same
offence, resulted in verdict Of not guilty.
John King, Yard Master at the Leav-
ittsburg depot, indicted for ~obstructing
highway with r. R. train, was found not
guilty. 1t was clear that somebody OBJ
structed the highway, but the jury
thought the indictment was against the
wrong man. Prosecutor for State in all
of the above cases, and Ensign for de-
PENDANT.
Mary Morrissey plead guilty to charge
of keeping room, &c, and was fined $50
and costs, and room to be abated as a
nuisance.
John Lenney entered same plea to
same offence and was visited with like
punishment.
VIM. a. Lee, in case of similar
cbaracfer was seutenced TO 20 davs in
jail and costs, and stand committed I'M
til costs are paid, and rooms to be abated.
In another case of same character he was
fined 500 and costs, and ordered to stand
committed until paid. Defendant, by
Ensign, his attorney, gave notice that he
intended to prosecute a writ Of error to
the District Court to reverse the judg-
ment, on ground that he had been in