The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-01-07
LAR REPORT.
COMMON PLEAS.

Philip A. Hudson v. The State. This
was one 0fa series of three applications
made by the plaintiffs, Louis Searles and
Louis Lang, to reverse judgment
passed upon them under a conviction in
the Police Court upon an information
charging them with exhibiting gaming
devices.
The alleged errors consist in the fact
that the informations failed to state the
names OF the persons to whom the de-
vices were exhibited, or aver that they
were unknown; that the informations
were defective because they did not aver
that the devices were exhibited for the
purpose of winning money or other valu-
able property, and that the act defining
the 0ffense requires that it should be
prosecuted by indictment, and that,
therefore, the Police Court had no final
jurisdiction of the cases.
The cases were submitted on brief.
Martin Pottery. The Big Sandy Val
ley Railroad Company. This was an ac-
tion to recover $l,5o6 for services rem
dered the defendant as chief engineer of
the road. The case Was heard and taken
under advisement.
Sarah Pottsdam V. Philip Pottsdam.
This was an application for divorce on
the part of plaintiff upon the grounds of
gross neglect of duty, extreme cruelty
and adultery. The defendant by cross
petition asked divorce on the ground
of gross neglect of duty. The parties
were married in May, 1872, ana lived very
unhappily until March, 1874, when they
caused an agreement to be drawn up pro-
viding for a separation. The testimony
showed that the trouble between the par
ties grew out OF the presence in the Tam
lily of the children of the defendant by
his first wife. The defendant was the
superintendent of the bakery wherein
the Jewish Passover cakes were baked.
The Court found there was no case
made out either by the plaintiff or de-
iendant upon either of the grounds of
gross neglect or extreme cruelty. Upon
the ground of adultery alleged to have
been committed by the defendant, the
Court found that the testimony of the
plaintiff made out case, and the plain
tiff would be entitled 10 u decree. While
he had not the utmost confidence in the
testimony on this point, yet it came in
such direct manner and with SO little
contradiction in it, that he was COM
PEELED to receive it. Each party were
restored to the property held prior to the
marriage.
Margaret Brice v. Duncan Brice. This
was an action Tor divorce on the grounds
OF gross neglect and wi4ful absence.
The parties, who were far past the mid
die Of life, only lived together two months
after marriage, when the plaintiff left
defendant and never returned, maintain
ing herself by her own work, she CON-
planning to one of the witnesses that she
would rather drown herself than live
with the defendant.
The plaintiff failed to show that she
had been compelled to leave defendant,
and the case was dismissed.
Magdalena Koch V. Adam Koch. This
case came up on cross-petition, charg-
ing the plaintiff with adultery, the plain
tiff having filed petition against the de-
| iendant, but subsequently abandoned
| the case. The parties were married in
| May, 1868. A case Of adultery on the
part of the plaintiff was made out, and
| the defendant was granted decree.
Samuel Sellers V. Josephine Sellers.
| This was an action in which the plaintiff
| charged the defendant with extreme cru.
city, wilful absence and gross neglect OF
duty. The defendant denied the charges,
and sought divorce On the ground OF
the gross neglect Of duty OF the plaintiff.
The testimony was not closed at the ad-
journment of Court.