The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1875-01-14
Rhoades vs. -Newby.

| LIS caSe came up accord.nS 10
postponement, before Squire Dog
Igett. last Saturday morning at IL
O'Clock at the Council Chamber, be-
fore large throng Of spectators, and
consumed almost the entire day.
The following persons were impanel-
ed as the jury; C, s. Bell, Benjamin
Conard, Enos Conard, John Falon,
Wesley Copes and Henry Strain.
The ground of complaint is found
in the following affidavit:
The said plaintiff, Henry Rhoades, makes
oath that the claim IN this action is upon
two promissory Dotes-one drawn by the
said Frank W. Rewby, payable to G. Fl.
Collins and assigned by said @. b. Collins
to said plaintiff, Henry Rhoades, and now
due and unpaid; onenote drawn by Joseph
Newby and Frank W. Newly for 800.
payable to said plaintiff and now due and
unpaid. And the deponent also makes oath
that said claim is inst, and that there is due
thereon S106 17-1O0. He also makes oath
eaoe eAO dOACuunuS HAS I6IuOVeQ a DdfJ OF
his property out of the county with intent
to defraud his creditors; also, that he has
property and rights in action. which be
fraudulently conceals. The said afiant
says the facts upon which he makes the
above allegations are as follows, to-wit
That he sold his wheat and put the money
IN his pocket without appropriating il on
his debts; also sold his hogs a short time
before he left, without appropriating the
money upon his debts also that he sold a
note for about 5000, and, with the proceeds
OF the sale of bis wheat and hogs, and the
sale of said note, absconded to Cumber-
land, Maryland and there fraudulently con-
cealed said property and rights of action,
refusing to appropriate the same on the
debt of this affiant, or any portion thereof
said wheat, as afiant is Informed, and be-
heves, was sold to one Birch Miller, and
sald note, as affiant believes, to the Nation
al Bank in Hillsboro. Affiant believes that
he took away with him about $1,000.
(Slgned) HENRY RHOADES.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
4th day of January. 1875. (Signed)
WASH. -DOGGErT, J. P.
To this the defendant, by his attor
neys, Sloane & Smith, made answer.
as follows: sr-.rv ~
The defendant, Frank Newly, says that it
is true he made and executed the notes sued
on by plaintiff; that he has paid certain
sums OF money ON said notes. and is entitled
to credit therefor. He admits some amount.
IS still due on said notes, and asks that the
plaintiff be held to strict proof of. such |
amount. He says that he does not owe e |
the plaintiff, however; anything on said |
notes, because he says that said plaintiff, [
on or about the 18th day of December, A. I
d. 1874, at Highland county, Ohio, took /
certain buggy of the value Of $500, the
property of the defendant, without the /
knowledge and consent of the defendant, |
and converted the same to his own use.
Therefore he prays that he may recover of
the plaintiff the sum of 300, the value of |
said buggy as aforesaid, less the amount [
that may be found due from him to the /
plaintiff upon the notes sued on, as his |
eounter-claim against said defendant |
Further answering, the defendant says it is !
aot true as alleged in the affidavit for an
order of arrest, fled by the plaintiff in this |
cause, that he has removed part of his
property out of the county with intent to
defraud his creditors. He denies that he
has property and rights in action which he
fraudulently coneeals. He denies all and !
any fraud. fraudulent intent or purpose,
and intends, and always intended, to pay
all of his just debts. (Signed)
FRANK NEWBY.
The plaintiff, Henry Rhoades, con |
dncted his own case, and Messrs.
Sloane & Smith appeared for the de-
fendant. A large number of wit
nesses were examined, and it was not
until about 6 o'clock that the case
was submitted to the jury, who re-
turned the following verdict, after
being out but few minutes:
We, the jury, upon the issues Joined, do
ind that the defendant is indebted to the
plaintiff in the snm of 800, and that the
plaintiff is indebted to the defendant upon
MS counter-claim in the sum OF S125. We
therefore find for the defendant in the sum.
; Is S3-100, the difference between the claim
If the plaintiff and the counter claim of the
defendant. We further find that the de-
fendant'fs not guilty in manner and form
IS charged in the affidavit for an order of
arrest (Signed)
@. s. BELL, Foreman.