The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1877-03-15

Smathers. The evidence showed that
defendant and two or three other parties
had jug of whisky, and going past the
found that the jug had been cracked,
and was leaking. They stopped to bor-
row a bucket The woman was in bed.
She got up, and furnished them a three
quart bucket, but the jug held a gallon.
They then undertook to drink the whs-
ky down so that the bucket would hold
it. The womauSSmathers helped them
drink the surplus whisky. Larcamp
then put his hands upon the shoulders
and breast of the woman, and made some
indecent remark The woman then took
a poker and made him leave. The Court
instructed the jury that the case Of in
tent was not made out The jury re-
turned verdict of guilty of assault and
battery. The Court assessed a fine Of
$50, and ordered defendant to Jail for
thirty days, the first ten days to be fed
on bread and water only.
State Of Ohio VS.. Harrison Smith. This
was an indictment for burglary and lar
ceny, for breaking into the shoe shop of
Daniel Jones, and stealing boots and
shoes. The jury returned verdict Of
not guilty.
State of Ohio VS. James NJ Radclifr
Assault and battery. Plea not guilty
The jury returned verdict of guilty |
State of Ohio VS.. Ancel Terry and 9TH
ers. Indictment for riot. Harriet Aid
ridge is quite an old woman, who resides
and sells whisky in Pattonyille, Bloom
field township. Some time in January |
last several men came to her house in
the night and called at the door. She
asked who was there The reply was
that it was the high Sheriff Of the county.
They rushed in, threw her on the bed,
put pillow on her face. They broke the
clock, and fired a gun several times.
They were disguised and their faces
blacked
The only question in the case that was
disputed, was the Identification Of the
parties. The case was tried by a called
ury, who returned a verdict of not
guilty.
State OF Ohio VS.. ANGEL Terry, William
Adney Halterman, Sylvester
Halterman and William Beard Riot.
The first witness called was Harriet
Aldridge. She stated that some two or
hree weeks after the affair mentioned {
n the last case, these defendants came I
o her house. disguised, broke in, threw !
Ter on the floor and put tar upon her, 1
ut open her pillows and poured the
gathers upon her. They cut off part of
Ter hair. On cross examination witness q
Omitted that she had told different q
stories about the affair, but claimed tha
he did so for the purpose Of inducing
he parties to make admissions as to
heir guilt. Witness said she was IS
ears Of age. I
Andrew Carr was next called He is a {
ear neighbor. Mrs. Aldridge came to |
is house on the night of the outrage, I
nd he went with her, and saw four or r
We men or more, who appeared to be d
They kicked witness, and ]
rove him home. lie did not recognize
ny of them. In a short time afterwards I
fitness found a threatening letter tackled
n his gate post. directing him to read it
0 Mrs. Aldridge and her sonin-law 1t i
eferred to trade about some corn, and Z
ended pretty strongly to show the mo I
i've for these repeated outrages, and I
lso pointed very strongly toward some q
{ the defendants '
There was much more corroborative I
estimony.