The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-01-23
LAW REPORT.
COMMON PLEAS.


e. II. Carey V. The Cincinnati Mutual
Ice Consumers Company. This was an
action to recover for services rendered
in organizing defendant Company.
The Court found there was conflict
of testimony as to the Cerms upon which
the services were rendered, some evil
dence tending to show that the compen-
sation was to be employment when the
organization was completed. There ap-
peared to be no corporation at the time
the contract was made with which to
make the contract or for whom to do the
work. The contract was made with in-
diyiduals who subsequently became
part of the corporation. The preponder-
ance of evidence was in favor Of the de-
fendant.
judgment accordingly.
John Brashears v. James l.. Rufiin.
This was an action to recover 500 Tor
services rendered in etIecting an eX-
change Of property between tue Defend
ant and Mrs. Atkins, OF Clifton. The
defendant claimed that the plaintiff was
only to receive the money in the event o!
| his having effected the exchange. Plain
| tiff cot a contract from Mrs. Atkins
| which she subsequently refused to carry
out, and she being a married woman the
defendant could not enforce it. A new
contract was made between the defend
ant and Mrs. Atkins by which she re-
| ceived $1,000 bonus. The original con-
tract provided Tor an equal exchange of
property.
The Court held that the plaintiff had
not performed the services he claimed he
had performed. An agent who is em-
pIoyed by party to purchase for him a
| piece of property from IL married woman
engages not only to get the contract, but
| to see that she carries it out, and if he
| pets a contract which can not be en-
| forced he is not entitled to compensa-
tion.
Il The State V. George Rufer ct al. In
this case, in which the defendants are
charged with the killing Of young Schil-
ling in November last, an application
was entertained for the appointment Of
an additional counsel for the defense oil
. Ruter.
Mr.. George E. Pugh stated thathe had
been spoken to by Mr.. Milligan, the coun'
: sci Tor Rufer, with reference to getting
him to assist in the case. Mr.. Milligar
was young man and had not confidence
} in himself in SO important a case. He
had told MIR. Milligan to get the assist
ance OF some other lawyer. Mr.. Milligal
had spoken to Judge Okey, who had writ
ten to say that in his present state Of
health he could not undertake the case
unless he Mr.. Pugh) would act with
him. The statute, however. did not per
nit the appointment OF three counsel
Under these circumstances he would ac
cept the appointment with MIR. MillIgan
The appointment was then made.
Mr.. Pugh stated further that il he nat
come in to the case sooner, he wOulu have
| objected to the issuing the present ven
, ire for the reason as stated out OF th'
. Court room that both the Coroner ant
the present Sheriff had been present a
some OF the interviews held with the de
rfendant in the Jail.
The Court suggested that that was ;
matter to be considered when the cas-,
was called for trial. 1t was stated b,
the Court that the appointment must no
. interfere with the trial of the. case OF
Thursday next.
The State V. Vincent Masting. The de
fendant pleaded guilty OF embezzlement
l 1t appeared that he was a tailor an,
: made coats for Fecnheimer, Frenkel 4
Co.. and failed to return a lot intruste,
to him for making up. The value OF tn
coats was liked at S3o. A sentence o
: thirty days in the Work-house and $40
fine and costs was passed.