The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1879-01-30

pack ana IOlQ my WHO tAaG 1nefe wa
nothing the matter, and I then went or
to my work. This was about fifteen min
utes before daybreak.
John NJ. Ewing. Was Sheriff wher
the defendant was brought to Jail. After
he had been in Jail he gave me purse
(Witness here gave the purse to the
Prosecuting Attorney
Thomas Plummer. First saw the de-
fendant at Columbus-in the Peniten-
tiany. On the morning of the robbery
at Roy's l was going to Roy's to work.
1t was just at daylight. Saw the defend
ant coming up the road from the direc-
ton of Eurekaville, going towards Mr..
Roy's. l was coming across the hill.
| Thought the man was Mr.. Heath, and I
waited for him. When he came up,
found it was defendant. Had some talk
with him, and we started up the road.
Met Mrs. Roy. (Here witness testified
same as Mrs. Roy.)
Henry Peters Met defendant that
morning-think it was defendant He
had no hat. Asked him why he had no
hat. He said he had been in scrape
and lost his hat. I took him down to
my gate and called to one of the boys to
bring him hat. 1t was red colored
hat, of wool, or felt.
Mrs. Roy was recalled, and identified
the purse that the prisoner gave to Sher-
iff Ewing as the purse that had been
stolen
The State here rested, and the defense
did not offer any testimony. DR.. Laird
raised the question that the proof did
not sustain the indictment. The indict
ment charged that the house broken was
dwelling house, and the proof showed
that Mr. Roys family had removed to
the new house, and the old house was
was only wareroom at the time, and
was no longer dwelling house.
The case was not argued, and the
Court charged the jury that it was not
necessary to define the crime of bur-
glary. as the proof failed to show that
the building was, at the time, dwelling
house. The Court then very briefly
charged as to the crime of larceny, and
the jury in ten minutes returned ver-
dict of guilty of larceny, and assessed
the value of the property at S. Is.
State of Ohio VS.. George Radcliff and
others. Gaming. Radcliff plead guilty,
and was fined $5 and costs.
State of Ohio vs. Daniel Crossin Sell
ing intoxicating liquor. Plea guilty,
and fine of S. assessed.
State of Ohio vs. Chris F. Bertsch.
Indictment for keeping a nuisance. Plea
guilty, and fine of $50 and costs as
sessed.
State of Ohio VS.. Dom mick Boyle. In
dictment for keeping nuisance. Plea
guilty, and fine of $50 and costs as
sessed
State of Ohio VS.. John Bertsch. In
lictment for selling Intoxicating liquor
Plea guilty, and fine of S. and costs as
;essed.
Same VS.. Same. SAME entry.
State of Ohio VS.. John Crossin and
Hugh Crossin. Indictment for keeping
/ nuisance. John Crossin entered a
Plea of guilty and was fined $50 and
costs. Nolle entered as to Hugh Crossin.
State of Ohio vs. Daniel Crossin. In
lictment for keeping nuisance. Plea
guilty, and fine of $50 and cost assessed. |
Legler, Barlow & Co. vs.. John C. H.
Cobb. Judgment by default for $412 SIS. |
Henry Jones vs.. George Faulkner and
Margaret Faulkner. Order for sale of |
nortgaged premises. Amount found due
i $50 90.
State of Ohio vs.. Thomas Leach and
thers. Indictment for gambling Leach
lead guilty, and was fined S. and cos is
State Of Ohio VS. Joseph H. Wills on.
his was the same old Democratic perse
ution case, for bribing a voter, and
which we fully reported at last term,
Then the jury failed to agree. In this
econd trial the jury returned verdict
f not guilty.
State ofOhio VS.. Thomas w. Patterson.
anne old bribery case, reported at last
erm. After hearing the principal wit
ess, James Turner, the Court appeared
D be disguised with the case, and or
cred the Prosecuting Attorney to enter
mozle proseqoi, and thus ends
be work of James A. Aleshire and
rvine DUNCAN as "reformers." They
ave caused the taxpayers to lose from
l 900 to 81 800, and what have they
fected?
State of Ohio vs. James Turner. In.
ictment for bribing an elector Verdict
OF guilty
William W. Buckley VS.. Joseph 7. Ed
ards. This was suit for damages for
llse arrest Buckley bought a lot of
attic from Edwards, and in payment
ave him check on the Iron Bank of
ackson. The check was made payable
wo days after date. Edwards testified
nat Buckley said the money was in
,dwards the money wou Id not be in
ank until he sent the cattle to Cincin-
att, and got the money for them, and
hat was why he made the check paya-
lie in two days after date. Edwards had
buckley arrested for obtaining property
nder false pretenses. and this suit was
rought for damages for said arrest. The
ury returned a verdict in favor of the
,laintif for $500. Motion by defendant
or a new trial.
State of Ohio VS.. Jacob L. Tucker. In
lictment for assault and battery. The
defendant had living with him his wifes
brother, boy some eight or ten years of
.ge' The boys name is Love. He was