The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1874-06-25
Court Proceedings.

Notwithstanding the very warm weather, the
Court, Judge FreSse still on the Bench, is max
ing its way through the docket with all the oill'
gence that could be expected
Since our last report & large amount Of bust
ness has been disposed of. The Grand Jury re-
turned some thirty indictments, most of which
we're for selling Intoxicating liquors, keeping
be drank where sold and other violations of the
Act Of the General Assembly to provide against
the evils resulting from the sale OF Intoxicating
The following indictments have been respon-
ded TO by the defendants named TO be entered
into recognizances respectively, with sufficient
suritles Conditioned for their appearance from
Ohio VS. Anton Crone Ohio VS. Nicholas
Slbiia; Ohio vs. Jonas LUtz; Ohio VS. Frederick
Ackerman OHIO vs. Jacob McMitzker; Ohio VS.
John bsrnes; OHIO VS. Timothy MADDEN, Ohio vs.
ANDREW Studker; Ohio VS. Elizabeth Perry; Ohio
VS. John Quinn; Ohio vs. Charles Underwoou; Ohio
vs. Gabrizl Baekhause; ohio vs. b / VoEelgesang
Iv. ohio VS. John Baker; Ohio VS. Jnnn Phillip;
ohio vs. John Nernei; Ohio vs. Reuben Myers
Among the Judgments rendered upon eivhls-
Hsnnsh F Wiley vs. Honlan Merideths EXIT
verdict for plaintiff for $1,000 Lynch, Day and
LOWS for plaintiff. repplt for deien lant- Hsr-
riet Mcclure vs. Elizabeth Frank, judg't for
Michael ouIgley VS. John Baker, judg't for plain
Anna Folwel VS. Charles H. Hartel, Thomas
McCuiIough; Kent Jarvis and Jacob Bucher.
Tkis was an action under the Adair law brought
by The plaintiff TO recover of the defendants for
selling Intoxicating liquors TO the PLAINTIFFS nus
band. The defendants Jarvis. Mccullough and
Sncher being charged as Iessers and owners OF
The premises, the defendant Hartel having sold
he Iiouors The proof Was somewhat clear that
darteTs establishment was notorious As a place
where intoxicating liquors were sold. The jury
however were of the opinion that the proof did
NOT show knowledge on the part Of Mccullough.
Jsrvis and Bucner that Intoxicating liquors were
ever sold on the premises under the lease to
HarteL. The verdict was for the plaintiff for
$50 against the defendant Hartsl only.
Michael Quigley W John Baker, juds't for Plff.
for $40.
for Plaintiff for Sl02.
Emanuel shopp rs Michael Quigley, judg't for
Michael Hoover VS. Henry Fesslcr, judge for
George W Lawrence VS. L Ball & Co decree for
PLAN in.
ed to sell the property attached.
Alexander Hurford vs. James MEllen, judg't
Henry Gaddis's Admir- VS. the P FIT 4 R
judg't for pif for $500. John Lanm vs. Nixon &
Trnstee &c. vs. Tidbau and others, judg't against
Tidsall only for 5000. Margeret Rhodes Exr, VS.
David Rhodes, jndg't for pit, Tor Sl3O540. Henry
Martin vs. Geo u Harry, judg't for PIN for S6is.l2.
Diff Tor S42l,32. John Reeds Admir- vs. Henry
Fry, iudg't for prf for $685.. Jacob McMiller VS.
the Wrought Iron Bridge Co, judgt for defts for
$279,42. The State of Ohio VS. John Shard, dett
recoenized with security. The State of Ohio VS.
John 6. WarWickand William Justus, indictment
for a nuisance. Defendants plea not guilty. De-
PENDANTS ordered TO enter into their own recog-
nizance IN SI00. Personally we know nothing OF
me merits of this matter but our court reporter
who is founded with the facts pronounces the
whole affair u very mean piece OF spite on the
part of persons swning property nneighoorhood
of Sippo Lake in Perry township. Should the
case come 10 trial the facts will be thoroughly
ventilated. The term Is good for another month
Notwithstanding the heat ofthe weather.