Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1871-02-10
Court Docket -pispoaal Of Cases.

V0uft UOcKeI-GlspOSal OF VhheS.
The following is the disposal Of cases in the
January term Of Wood County Common Pleas
Court, up to the uucoremonsous adjournment by
Judge PILLARS.
OWL DOCKET.
900 Witzlsr & Bro vs Houston, settled at cost
1OSO-- -Woodworth VS. Cass Of al dismissed at
cost Of plaintiff
1lsl--Jenkius VS. Commissioners, order locating
road set aside
114i-McCiookey a Moore VS. Union 1ns Co.,
judg't Tor pltffS3529, will be taken up on error
1l42-Dustman. VS. Mint n, judgt for pllh $3.50
1909 -McMahan VS. Hollenbeck, judgement for
plaintiff 9696 Al new trial granted .rfI
130s-Ilolenbeck VS. Russell. dismissed and ap-
peal taken
I32S-Hahn VS. Lease dismissed at cost Of pltff
1885 Ridgway rs Ridgway, dismissed at cost
Of plaintiff
f3e7-Reed 4 Rogers VS. wcddell, dismissed at
cost OF plalntig .
1i05 jones VS. Norton verdict for defendant
(new tIiaO s.s tt.. s
1893 y Williams VS. Austin, judgement for pl'if
damages l cent
l4T5- Herringtou VS. Bostdorf, verdict for plain,
1ios-IiridiuSer VS. wOrloy, sale confirmed,
1905 Skinner VS. Ellis, decree for defendant, ap-
156o-williams VS. Russell ct al, decree for pltf
mi. pet.
'ls9lA-}ader vs. Keeler dismissed, appeal taken
1895 Legron VS. Webb, judgement for defend
/ ant 2d trial allowed
1897 LLeRr6n vs. Smith, left of the docket
1898 --Leeron VS. Knauss, verdict for defendant
81 trial allowed
1904 Powers VS. Powers OF al, assignment Of
dover it4 H}rt No rev
1907 Rodetick vs. Cole, decree for plaintiff
w aaA vc Gaaa Mt n
le2t-Parker VS. Van Reusaler, settled and costs
\ l pain s'aj 9 llttf Hrs rIN eE
1s4l--Parks ys De Mag verdict for plaintiff sIOo
| l613-Eldridge Va BrowusbargeF et al Judge
ment for plaintiff cent 81 trial allowed
| 1s45-Joncs vs. Barnes, settled
l675-Muir vs Stewart ct al, ini perpetual, aP-
seal taken
16S2-Pi Pinnegsr VS. Pinnegar, partition ordered
1888 = Hampton VS. Mum, dsmisped at cost Of
i defendant
1892 wii.ler.ys LapgrOrd, settled at cost Of
l6o54white vs. Conrad ct al, judgement for de-
Sendant 81 ttial allowed
1696-White vs. Aprlc, judgement for defendant
2d trial allowed l.
169T-WAiie Us jackson, continued at cost o
plaintiff
1899 Stacy ct al VS. Stacy, dismissed for want
of pros.
171l--Pinncgar VS. Allen ct al, decree for Pl,f.
17l6-McFall vs. Roe, judgement for plaintiff
1923 -McGoukey Moore VS. MeNonegal ct al
dismissed at cost Of plaintiff
HAS Case vs Louy. dismissed at coat Of plif.
l729-Loyie VS. Cdlkins, left of docket at cost o
defendant
1733-Shives vs. Eaton. dismissed at cost Of pitt
742-Gradolph v Bader ct al, decree for plain
tiff and order Of sale
1749 -0gle VS. Kinmeyer ct al, decree for plain
. tiff and order Of sale
D 1750-Josselyer Va WoFley ct al decree for pit
and order of sale
1859 June & Co vs. Rcdman & Co, judgemeu
for plaintiff 1902 so "a trial allowed
} l76l-Hood VS. Seibert, sale confirmed aud dec
9 ordered
l762-Rees Va Beckwith et al, decree for plain
tiff and order Of sale
3 766-Bader VS. McClin,c, judgement for plain
l tiff s253 90
I767-Jacksnn VS. Jackson. settled and costs phi
izes-Gase VS. Loory, dismissed at cost .: pltG
e l774-Kahler VS. Clink, appeal dismissed
e 1775-Dinn VS. Atkinson ct al, Judgement ft
plaintiff S490 10
}, l776 Canary VS. Dustnan ct al, decree for pit
and order of sale
e l77s.- billings vs. Abbott e. al, judgement ft
e plaintiff S2lS 93
179l--Psir ys Pair, decree Of divorce
s l7g3-Jennings VS. Jennings, part. ordered
lI94-Herman vs. Russell ct al, mi. perpetual
n I795-Hapes ct al VS. Smaller, do do
g 1898 -Yeager VS. Stevens ct al decree and Ord'
OF sale
1So0--Finch VS. Blair, settled at cost OF plainti
d fS0l-Lancks VS. Lancks, divorce
g 1895 Whitney VS. Ford ct al, settled
: 1s06-Wood vs. Truman, part. ordered
e 1907 Arson VS. Bader, judgement for plainti
n $3.50 90
: 1sO9-WhitDy VS. Eberly, decree and order
It sale
l9l0--Baily vs Trustees Center tp, settled
!, lsI9-Rssco Or Springer ct a, judgement f
: plaintiff s203 60
1s21-biattinger VS. Fair ct al, judgement 4
d plaintiff Sl98 is
it 1822-Fisher VS. Fair, settled
s 1827-JacksOn VS. Bantln ct al, dismissed at Gu
OF plaintiff
q 1929 barrow ct al VS. Freiss ct al decree al
order Of sale
. lS3l-Darrow ct al vs. Freiss ct al, decree al
j. order Of sale
Is32-Skinner & McColIey ct al, decree for pl
I833-Adams & Coons VS. Sterling, settled
J. IS34-Miller vs. Estcott, judgement for plaint
7, 1892 So
d 18l1-Reed vs. Fishburn, decree and order of sa
1883 ---HolIeubeck VS. Nye ct al, decree and ord
It of sale
= CRIMINAL DOCKET.
- 95X-Ohio vs. McCue, left off docket
= = l04-Ohio VS. Miller, uoIied
y ll5-Ohio VS. Oliver, (horse stealingi ple
y y guilty sentence years in penitentiary
"a ll6-Oh0 VS. Stout, (petit larceny plead gu
q a. -. To-