The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1873-03-20

and pursued him TO the house, crowding
him against the house. Rees Mercer, a
young man, son of Mrs. Mercer, atwhose
house the parties were, came to the door
and pushed Jordan into the door, and
pushed Russell out. About the time
that Harrison Russell had crowded John
Jordan to the wall. William Russell
caught Israel Jordan and jerked him
back, throwing him over the seat. His
feet remained on the plank seat, his
back on the ground, and his head against
the box. Samuel Russell immediately
commenced striking him in the face,
bending over him. Israel was in a help
less condition, in the manner in which
he was thrown. He struck over-handed,
and hit Samuel on the forehead, above
the leftseye cutting small cash. About
this time Rees Mercer came out and
pulled Samuel off Israel Samuel's face
was washed. and he did not appear to be
much injured. He went about his bust
ness for near a week, when he began to
complain of being chilly, and having
dizziness in the head Dr. Newell was
called in. and few days afterwards DR..
A. B. Monahan. The boy gradually
grew worse, and finally had convulsions,
and in about six weeks after he was in
jured, he died. A post nlOrtun1 examina-
ton showed that the blow had crushed
in the outer plate of the skull, and the
inner plate was cracked an inch long,
and was opened wide enough to admit
knitting-ne but the inner plate did
not impinge upon the brain. 1t was the
opinion of the surgeons that death had
ensued from the blood from the outer
wound leaking through the crack in the
bone. and forming a clot on the brain,
causing slow inflammation, and finally sof-
tening of the brain. The only real ques-
ton in the case was, whether Jordan
used deadly weapon without just cause,
and whether he used more force than
was necessary for self-defense. 1t was
claimed by the State that Jordan went
to the apple cutting armed with dam
gerous weapon, intending to provoke an
assault. It was claimed by the defense
that the Russell boys had made threats.
and that Israel provided himself with
the lead in order only to defend himself
if attacked. The jury failed to agree
standing nine for acquittal and three for
conviction
Laton Atha VS.. Sarah Atha. This was
petition for divorce, charging willful
absence for more than three years, and
also adultery. The evidence showed
that the plaintiff went into the army and
never returned to his family, but went
and married another woman, and was
sent to the Penitentiary for bigamy. The
absence appeared to be willful only on
the part of the plaintiff. His excuse for
this was. that he had heard reports
derogatory to the character of his wife,
but nothing improper was proven, only
vague rumors. Cause continued for
further testimony
State of Ohio VS.. Martha Frazee In
dietment for being the keeper of house
of i'll fame. A special plea was entered,
claiming that the Endorsement on the in
dictment was not in proper form. After
argument the plea was overruled, and a
plea of guilty entered. and fine OF
twenty dollars assessed.
Daniel d. Morgan vs. Geo. w. Hamer.
The petition claims that the defendant
made written proposition to sell five
shares of stock in. Cambria Furnace, for
the sum of $4,000, and the plaintiff ac
cepted said proposition, but afterwards
failed to comply with the contract Suit
was brought to recover the sum of 50 00C
damages. The answer sets out that al
the time of the proposition the defend
ant did not own the stock, but that he
was one of five heirs, who owned the five
shares of stock, which had belonged tc
| his father, now deceased, and thai
plaintiff well knew that fact 1t also sci
out that plaintiff was book keeper at the
the value of said stock, and that ht
falsely misrepresented the value of sale
stock. One of the heirs was minor
Demurrer to answer. The court helc
that the contract was entire, and went Il
all the five shares, and that if one be
longed to a minor, the defendant had nj
authority to sell it. and if plaintiff knew
that fact, he could not hold the defend
ant to- the contract. Demurrer to tha
part of the answer oyerruled, and sus
tanned as to the other part of the answer
James Vanden & Son vs. William NJ
Chew ct al. Judgment by default fo
1886 10.
Melissa Martin VS.. John w. Martin
Petition for divorce for willful absenc
for more than three years. Divorc
granted.
James vanden & Son VS.. William M
Chew ct al Judgment by default 70
$4S4. SO.
Adolph Bottstein vs. Whitfield A. Tol
ley Judgment by default for $4O5 As.
Hopkinson & Co. VS.. Whitfield A. To
ley Judgment by default for $2l6.75.
State of Ohio VS.. esse S. Savage ant
William A. Savage. This was indictmen
for selling personal property which de
PENDANTS had mortgaged. After tn
State had produced its testimony, tn
Court directed the Jury to return a vel
dict of not guilty, no case having bee
made out against the defendants.
William T. Evans VS. Albert Farmer e
al. Foreclosure of mortgage. Deere
for $3.50 81, and order for sale of NOR
gagged premises.
Giles Wales & Co. VS.. Whitfield A. To
ley. Judgment by default for 1919 03.
George Dever VS.. Jesse S. Savage an
w. A. Savage. Foreclosure of mortgag