Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1872-12-18
Court Proceedings,

iSAudut was tudL no uJnOrlly e4lSteu IN
plaintiffs-lo bring such action. D cision
reserved. Jones for plaintiffs Palm
and Judge TuttIe for defendants.
The case of Jas. r. Lamb VS.. j. NJ.
Dickerman was tri-d to the Court.
Plaintiff sought to reach money s claimed
to be in hands of defendant, belonging
to the Mecca Oil Company TO satisfy a
judgment obtained against that Comps-
ny, claiming a lien on money in defend
ants hands by virtue Of a process of
gsrnishment served upon defendant in
the suit in which the Judgment was OBJ
tanned. Judgment for plaintiff for
sl5l.s5. Second trial demanded by de
fendant. A. Abel for plaintiff; Jones
for defendant.
Mary Ryan, convicted Of assault and
battery, was fined 500 and costs, and
ordered to be committed until paid.
Oils Mason Us. Geo. W. Swegan, tried
Tuesday, was a suit upon aprumisSory
note for about one hundred dollars, to
which defendant claimed set Off. Judg-
ment for plaintiff SOS. Sutlif & Stewart
for plaintiff; Capt. Dyer for defendant.
John II. Feister VS.. J. G.. and J.. NJ.
Calender, was a suit upon a partnership
account, plaintiff claiming that he and
defendants had been partners in the
mercantile and manufacturing line that
the partnership was dissolved but the
business not closed that a considerable
amount was coming to plaintiff, and
asking that an account be taken. Decree
tor plaintiff for $3Oss7. Ratlif & Moses
for plaintiff Beaver for defendants
Notice of appeal by defendants.
George Fell VS.. William Kelly, tried
to a jury, was a suit brought to recover
damages for alleged breach of dairying
contract, amount claimed being $500.
Defence that plaintiff had failed to full
ill on his part. Verdict on the 18th for
plaintiff for $3.50. Ratliif & Moses for
plaintiff; SutIif & Stewart for defend
ant.
On Thursday the case of Anthony J.
Howell VS.. S. F. Bartlett was tried to a
jury. About q year ago a Mrs. Cook r
covered a judgm, Mt against H. II. Kel
Ter Of $500, under the Adair law, for dam
age arising from the sale of liquor by
Keller to the husband of Mrs. Cook, and
execution was placed in the hands Ofde
PENDANT Bartlett, who as Constable under
the direction OF Mrs. Cooks counsel,
Judge futile, levied upon the stock OF
liquors, etc in the saloon of Keller on
Liberty street, in this city. Before sale,
The plaintiff RI in this case, Howell, caused
the goods to be seized in replevin, claim
ing to be the Owner of them, and that
Keller was simply his agent, and the
question at issue was as to the owner
ship of tho property. Verdict for de-
PENDANT for SSI6.25. Ensign for plaintiff;
Judge futile for defendant.
The next case tried was that ofLycur-
gus W. Patton VS.. Lewis W. Morgan
The plaintiff claimed damages for alleged
breach OF contract of lease of a farm in
Weatnersfeld, in that after contract was
made and plaintiff had incurred expense
in preparing to work the farm defendant
efused 10 allow him to take possession.
Defence that plaintiff failed to perform
certain conditions precedent. Verdict
for plaintiff Saturday morning for 500.
Several criminal cases were passed
upon Saturday morning. In the case OF
Ohio VS.. Frank Sagers, an important de-
cIsiOn was rendered. At the March term
Tie dafarIanf ma ;,5;ot,1 E,rLaa,;nu
a room OF public resort in Brookield
where intoxicating liquors were sold in
violation of law, and also for several
Jingle sales Of liquor, the sales being
a legged TO have been made during the
time covered by the Indictment under
the fourth section. Tbs defendant plead
guilty to the first named indictments and
vas fDed and imprisoned. The other
cases were continued. At this term one
Of them was tried and defendant found
guilty. It appeared upon the trial that
The same evidence upon which the de
PENDANT was convicted was before the
Grand jury at the term al sshich the in
lictment under the fourth section was
found, and the defendants counsel
sought to set up the former conviction
and sentence as a bar to this prosecution,
calming that as the sale complained of
mere was made during the time covered
oV the first Indictment, a trial on the
present charge was in effect, putting the
lefendanttwice in jeopardy for the same
offence, and that a convictioL under the
present indictment would result in pun
tshing the defendant t~ ice for the same
crime, to which the State answered that
r..e result could not follow because the
offences were essentially different.
His Honor, Judge GLIDDEN, in a
learned and exhaustive opinion, arguing
the quesliOn-On principle aud reviewing
he decision of the Supreme Court OF
Maine and other States, held the plea of
former conviction to be no bar 70 this
prosecution. Exceptions were taken by
tie defendant with a view of testing the
question in the higher courrs. Prose
-uting Attorney for State Ensign for
defendant.
II. H. Keller, convicted on two indict-
ents for keeping room where'intoxi-
.-ating liquors are sold in violation o.
law, was in enc case fined $50 and costs
md ordered to s and committed until
ine and costs are paid, and the room
,rdered to be closed until bond is given
in sum OF $1,000, according to statute. In
he second case he was fined $50 and
costs, to stand committed until paid, and
10 be confined in Jail 80 days, and place
20 be abated as a nuisance GHtil bond is
given. The same defendant, in the con
iempt case alluded to last week, was
ordered to pay a fine of $50 and costs, and
in default 20 days in Jail.
John ]. Jones, under plea of guilty to
keeping q room, etc, was fined $50 and
costs, and stand committed until paid,
md place to be abated as a nuisance un-
ill bond is given. Second offence, being
conviction for single sale, he was fined
$50 anu costs. Third offence, on plea OF
guilty OF single sale, sentenced to pay
SIS and costs, and stand committed until
paid, and 80 days in Jail.
VIM. See, a clerk at Jones', on plea Of
guilty of single sale, was fined SIS and
| costs, and ordered to stand tied
until paid.
Tl.-a -,oo-z 80 Ia q dsenoefffo, 80