Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1871-06-21

[ tiuued on to Nevada, where, the follow
| ing winter, he obtained a divorce from
plaintiff, notice OF which was given il
some newspaper, the name of which hi
had forgotten. Having rather bad for
tune in Nevada and California, he re
turned, in 1867, to Vienna, where h,
/ afterward married a second wife, will
whom he now resides at that place, hav
ing been, until quite recently, in tn,
mercantile business with one Guilty.
The plaintiff, in reply, denied the mos
Of defendants story. and especially re
puaiated the using of language attrib
uted to her, the statement that the Off,
GERS were jsyhawkers, and drunk, anC
that defendant offered TO divide his prop.
crty with her. Considerable proof was
given as to the financial standing o
deendant, with a view Of affecting the
question of alimony. The Court has the
case. Taylor & Jones for plaintiff; Gid.
den for defendant.
Owen Riley and Wife VS.. Patrick
O'Grady, next tried, was a suit brought
to recover for services alleged to
have been rendered by Mrs. Riley, be-
fore marriage, to defendant. Amount
claimed, six hundred dollars. Defence,
that Mrs. Riley came to defendants house
when quite young, without expecting to
receive wages, was treated by defendant
and his family as a daughter, and when
she was married was given a setting-out
as a daughter would have been. Yer
dict for plaintiffs, four hundred dollars.
Taylor & Jones for plaintiffs Glidden
and A. J. Dyer for defendants.
II. R. Velpey & Co. VS.. J. C. McLain,
was next tried. Suit brought on an
account for boots and shoes. Defence,
that the goods were not worth the money.
Verdict for plaintiffs for two hundred
and twenty-four dollars, being about
sixty dollars less than claimed. Fuller
for plaintiffs Ensign for defendant.
Catharine Lewis vs.. Caroline OPP ct
al, was a suit to foreclose a land con-
tract. Defence, that no deed had been
offered by plaintiff, and that plaintiff bad
not title TO the land at the commence
ment Of the suit. Tried to the Court.
Judgment for defendants. Hutchins for
plaintiff; Ensign for defendants.
On Monday, 18th, the case Of Marga-
ret Davis Us. Thomas Quinn ct al, was
commenced to a jury. Suit to recover
damages for the death Of plaintiffs hus-
band, alleged to have been caused by
liquor sold him by Quinn. Defence
that deceased did not come by his death
in the way claimed, and that he liquor
sold him was not Sold in violation Of
law. Before testimony was introduced,
counsel for defendants raised to the
Court the point that the petition did
not show that the liquor was sold con-
trary to law, and that uRless so sold, no
liability would attach to either defend
mt. The Court sustained the point
made, and plaintiff took leave to with
draw a juror, andthe case was continued.
This is the first case in this court based
upon the statute of April Is, 1870, max
ing the vendor of liquor and the owner
Of the building where sold liable for
damage 10 any one injured. A. J. Dyer
for plaintiff; Taylor & Jones and Gid
den for defendants.
During the week quite a number Of
divorce cases were tried. Allen S.
Wares was granted a divorce from Isa-
bella on ground Of adultery. Hutchins
for plaintiff.
Fayette Ball was granted like relief
against Caroline for like aus Ensign
for plaintiff.
Nancy Burnett was divorced from
J. for same cause. Taylor for
plaintiff.
Harriet Logan was allowed divorce,
custody Of children and alimony, against
John c. Logan, for drunkenness and
desertion. StulI for petitioner.
Candace @. Weston was divorced from
Warrington S. on ground Of 6esertion.
StU1l for plaintiff.
Permeiia Clark obtained divorce from
Andrew J. Clark, on ground Of deser-
ton. Aso custody of children and ali
mony. Spear for plaintiff.
William Lewis vs.. Andrews & Coch-
ran, assignees of Harris, Blackboard &.
Co. On trial to the Court.