The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-04-15

The jury in the case of r. Il. Young
against the Andes Insurance Company
rendered u verdict for the plaintiff for
$2,717. The particulars of the case were
mentioned yesterday.
In the case of Manss, Ault & Co.
against j. Hudson, u suit upon an ac-
count, the jury returned a verdict of
$371 for plaintiffs.
The wills of Elizabeth Morlidge and
Charlotte Pace were probated yesterday.
The will OF James }. Robinson was also
probated. Mary Robinson was appointed
e1eeHtrlX; seS Tso ~ tiefsonaity' a. $loo realty,
probated. Lydia Il. SWEET was ap-
pointed executrix. Personally, $4Oo;
realty, 81 200.
Frederick StapS was appointed admin
istrator of William Igel. Estate, $40, in
personally.
The Clifton land suit of Mary Chand-
Ter VS.. Longworth's executors, will be
proceeded with to-day.
Frank Ruhl VS.. Samuel Hullenbower.
This was a petition in error to reverse
Judgment affirming the judgment of u
Magistrate in refusing to discharge an
attachment. This Court held there was
no error in the record, and affirmed the
judgment.
The Court, in the case of Penelope Ja-
cobs against the Board OF improvements,
granted an alternative writ of manda-
mus, returnable in fifteen days, compell-
ing the defendants to show cause why
they refuse TO order the payment of the
amount of damages awarded the plain
tiff, occasioned by the construction of
Columbia avenue. The cuse was men,
toned some time ago.
A mandamus WAS refused in the case
of +. Steeple against +. A. Johnson.
The application WAS made to compel the
defendant to take security on bond for
an appeal from judgment rendered by
him.
The appeal for a new trial in the di-
vorce case of Henry III. Peyser vs. Dora
Peyser was dismissed, the Court holding
case.
William Russell vs. Andrew Fl. Reuss.
This was an action to reverse q judg-
ment which the defendant obtained in
| his favor when sued for $1,000. The
Court utfi med the judgment OF The lower
Court.
The Judgment of the lower Court was
affirmed in the case of Burroughs Agin
against W. Il. Bell, in which the plaintiff
sought to reverse i. on the ground that
the verdict was not according to the
| testimony.
The Court in the case OF Mary E. Mil.
ler vs. Lucy ID. Peters and others
affirmed the two judgments of the Court
below. This was partition suit be.
tween the heirs Of the late w. G. Peters.
The widow was made party to the suit
SO as to have dover assigned to her,
which was fixed at $500 per annum. The
grantee OF Mrs. Miller filed a motion to
stay execution tor the dover. That mo-
ton was overruled. She then asked, In
y separate suit, an injunction to restrain
the execution of that charge Tor dover
upon the land. The suit for injunction
was dismissed. These TWO petitions il
error were then filed to reverse the &C
tion OF the Court below in these particu
lars.
i In the case OF Ingraham, assignee, vs.
i Wyeth, in the United States Court, ,
suit for assets illegally transferred, thu
Jury rendered verdict for plaintiff io
1856 81.
NJ. Harris VS.. David Lazuarus. This
was petition in error. The plaintiff
sought to review a dormant judgmen
obtained by him in 1857 against the de
tenuant. A demurrer OF the petition wal
sustained as d transcript of it had neye
been filed. An amenued petition aver
, ring certain amount yet due in tn
IJuuRmeHG Wae dieo uAeu. 4uS JuuBueH
IN 1857 was in favor OF Harris, and tn
, defendant claimed the plaintiff had u,
/ right of action in the judgment. Tn
|. Court in deciding the case held that Har
ris had right OF action and reversed
the judgment OF the lower Court. The
case was tried in the District Court.
! In the case of Valentine Baker agains
0. M. Smith, the District Court held tha
, there was no error in the judgment Q
the lower Court and affirmed it. The de
fendant obtained a judgment for profes
Isional services against the plaintiff be
fore magistrate some time ago whic
! the plaintiff now sought to nullify b
claiming that The magistrate had n
7ljufisdiction. rs