The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-05-13
Court Cuttings.


General Docket.-Freeman Lathrop ct
al. vs. Harvey Young ct al. Error to the
Superior Court of Cincinnati. Judg-
ment reversed, demurrer to the petition
overruled, and judgment rendered for
the plaintiffs. The State of. Ohio, on re-
lation of the eAttorney-Generalv vs.. Wilson
S, Taylor and others. Judgment tor de-
PENDANTS. James d. Filson VS.. the Trus-
tees of Vernon township, Crawford
county, Ohio. Peremptory writ OF man
damus allowed.
Motion Docket-James A. Hover, ad-
ministrator OF Curtis Hover, VS.. The
Pennsylyania Company, Lessee of the
Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago
Railroad Company. Motion for leave
| to file petition i'll error; motion over
ruled, Charles S. Wolsey VS.. The Lake
Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad
Company. Leave to file a petition in en-
ror granted. Ezra Phelps vs.. Thomas
A. Thompson. Leave to lille petition
in error granted. Thomas McGinness
and others vs.. James Il. Darby. Leave
| to file q petition m error Overruled
Francis q. Dunston vs.. The State of Ohio.
Motion Tor the allowance Of a writ of er-
| ror granted and case taken out oil its or
der. The Central Insurance Company
VS.. A. II. Smith, executor. Motion for
leave to file petition in error. Settled
and motion, withdrawn. Adam Stroll
vs.. Matthew. A. Baber. Leave to file a
petition III error overruled. jacob j +.
Fisher VS.. The State of Ohio. Motion for
the allowance of writ OF error grant
ted and case taken out OF order.
| Mansfield. Coidwater and Lake Michi-
gan Railroad Company VS.. Luther A.
Hall. Leave to file petition in error
granted, and ordered to be taken out OF
| It's order and to be heard June 10th with
| No. 57l, General Docket, and other cases
involving similar questions.
The State, on the relation of j. M
Clark, brought suit in the District
Court upon q motion for an alternative
writ of mandamus against the County
Auditor to compel him to show cause
why he does not draw his warrant upol
the County Treasurer to pay the sum o
, 5000, which he claims due him as Record
ing Clerk of the Probate Court unde
Judge Hoetfer. Under the Fee Bill til
! salary of the relator was fixed at $40 pc
. week. The Court neld that the AudiGo
, was justified in refusing to draw hi
warrant, as the affidayits and exhibits
! | in the relators information were too un
' certain TO warrant such an action, ant
that the receipts had not been signed a
required by Section 13 of the Fee Bill.
The State, on, the relation of L. }
IDieghan, VS.. The Same. This was
! similar application, the relator in thi
l case being the Janitor of the Probat
e Court under Judge Hoeffer. The Cour
Q held that the reIator did not come. With
!, the terms Of the Fee Bill.
!, Milcreek Lodge, No. 2l9, |. 0. 0. =
: VS.. Wm. Feeney and wife,, This was
S suit to get at the separate property of
: wife to satisfy the debt OF husband
u The Court refused 10 subject the wife
q property, and dismissed the petition.
}, The Incorporated Village OF Riversid
IL VS.. The Extension OF the Lower Rive
8 Road Company. This was an applies
b ton for the removal Off toll-gate froi
}, the village of Riverside. This case ha
Is been mentioned before. The Court hel
l. that the relief asked Tor by the villag
l. would have to be granted, and the tol
q gate removed, as the law of the organ
II cation OF the defendant prevented a gal
1, within 80 rods OF the limits of the village
u Messrs. Crane u Son have appeale
u from judgment Of the United State
y District Court, to the Circuit Court, G
u Judgment given in favor OF Cassil
B. SHotWeli, in the case ofDubois & Augu
bankrupts.
@ 1t is reported that the case of Il
"a Widow Hodkinson against the Glol
i, Mutual Lille Insurance Company w
% be compromised for $2.5O0.