The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1876-09-23
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court continued its session this
week, the business consisting mainly in max
ing and deciding motions. Some oral ar.
guments were also made: on Tuesday in Joliet
tax case; on Wednesday in case of Reynolds VS..
People, error to Knox, on Peoples docket; on
Thursday and Friday in some Chicago tax cases.
The call of the docket began on Monday and has
progressed at the rate of 20 cases day. On
Wednesday the call OF the Peoples docket. One
of the cases decided during the week was that of
Cushman ct al. VS.. Mary E Stout, from this coun-
ty. The facts were once well known through
the trial in the Circuit Court, but will bear re-
peating here. The appellant Mary Stout, wife
of Or. Jos Stout, in 1870, owned 60 shares of the
stock of the Ottawa glass works. In May or
June of that year, DR.. Jos Stout being in need
of funds borrowed the certificate of stock to
raise some $4,000, but as is stated by her did not
present the certificate as collateral. Bird Bck.
ford, lawyer of this city, who needed $1,000
succeeded in inducing DR. Stout 10 deposit these
certificates in the First Nat. Bank of this city,
upon which 81, 900 were obtained for the use and
benefit of Bedford. Bickford failed to pay, and
the bank becoming uneasy, dunned him fire.
ford finally applied to w II w Cushman for
money and promised Cushman the stock then
in the bank If he would give him the $1,000 he
needed. This he did, and he received the glass
stock from Bickford as collateral. Afterwards
Bickford obtained from the glass company GER
tl6cate OF stock for the shares in his own name.
The verdict OF the court below was in favor of
Mrs. Stout as against Cushman. The opinion on
the appeal is as follows, by Justice Dckey: "A
decree was entered in this controversy by the
Circuit Court of La Sale county from which an
appeal was taken. The appellant brought par
tial record to this court, and filed it in No. AL
The appellee now brings transcript OF record
and re. dockets the case as No. ZOO A motion is
made by appellee to dismiss the appeal and
motion by the appellant for q certiorari in No AT
to perfect the record. The statute requires that
in all cases Of appeal, transcript of the decree,
judgment or order appealed from shall be filed
in the Office OF the clerk OF this court on or be-
fore the Cd day of the next term thereof. Upon
examination Of the pretended record brought
here by appellants 1t is found that it does not
comply with the statute; that it is not a tran
script of decree, order or judgment from which
the appeal is taken; hence, iii obedience to the
statute, the appeal must be dismissed and the
motion for certiOrdri denied. The re.docketing
of the case as No. 700 seems to be irregular. 1t
is the same case, and the moment that an appeal
bond was filed in the Circuit Court, in contem-
plation OF law, that appeal would be a cause
pending in this court There is but one case
that is appealed to this court, and therefore
there should be but one entry on the docket.
No. 700 will therefore be dismissed from the
docket"
During the week the following persons were
admitted on Foreign license: Mr.. ID Jewell, d
B Burton, Elinwood, f Addison Shelly, X
Mckay,