The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1880-04-07

SohMoN fbEAa
Before Judge Johnston.
63,67O-C. A. Wempe VS.. Jacob Breuer.
56,IlS-Iohn II. Lauck VS.. Robinson Wagon co.
o4,a0-Joinville Reif vs. VIM 2. Wallace ct al
90, 7Sl-Alvln Barnes, Jr, VS.. Leon, Marks & Co.
d,9QS-Armin Tenner VS.. Hayes d o. Brien.
Before Judge Smllh
o., 6,5S2-Charles s. Tallmadge vs. Incorporated
Village of Harrison
56,592-Julius Harris vs.. Dewitt G. Lee ct al
56'6oi-John Hauff vs. c., H. Il D. Railroad Co.
66,620-Magdalena Leopold VS.. Arnold Steffen.
56,62S-David S. Schueman vs.. Joseph A. Brigel.
56: 634-Fourth National Bank vs.. Leopold Burk-
hardt ct al.
Before Judge Longworth.
be,7s7-Albert D. Diserens, administrator, vs.
Annie Stofel ef al
59.7sl-Barbara Gebhardt ct al. VS. Simon Hill
gartner.
So e793-Caroline Fraust w. B. N. Rover ct al.
b9 79o-Charles Fischer vs. Krans & Roos.
bg 199-Fox d Bird vs. James D. Smith,
59S05-A. +. Aron VS.. A. & J. Plant
b9SO7-W. II. Hager d Co. VS.. Julius Walter
ana wife.
5s,sll-H. Cummings vs.. Meader Furniture
59.SlS-Thrd National Bank VS.. T. VIM. Gold
kamp tai
59,S23-Wm. S. Ludlow VS.. Gilbert Dater.
Before Judge Burnett
hS349, 6s. .361, IS, 400, bS, ,49S.
5S.533-P. C. & st. Louis R. R. Co. vs. Little
Miami Elevator Go.
68,567-Sarah Clark vs.. N. Alexander.
Before Judge Avery
6o,5i5-Mary N. Applegate VS.. Second National
Bank.
60 a4-Julia A. Manning vs.. Mary A. Kinsey
ct al.
60554-Frank George vs.. John Fugel.
60 5H--D, L. Wilder ct al, ex parte.,
605S0-Henry G eseking VS.. &. f. Adae & Co.
60,5SS-Bridget Farrell VS.. The City.
60592-H. Heuch VS.. Charles Fuchs
60636-rnomas B. Hoovler VS.. John Mechley
ct al.
60 644-Charity Cook VS.. Clara Becker ct al.
6O,6I6-Margaret r. Poor VS. VIM. II. Parry
SUPERIOR.
Before Judge Harmon.
/ 94,so5-E F. Barker VS.. O. W. Nixon ct al.
34993-Jos, Joseph & Bro. Vs. Licking Rolling
Mill Co.
3l7l1-James J. Mitchell VS. Frederick Spencer.
34,76l-Philip Geise vs. Jacob Pau, Jr., ct al.
350l5-Sarah Waterman vs. G., ii. d D. Railroad
Company
35,035-Jacobs s. Andres vs. David Lillia
Drunk-John Watson, Lou. Martin, Ed.
Brady. 10 days; Geo. Miller, Pat. Welsh,
So; Eliza Meyers, 80 days; Maggie Scollard,
continued; Thos. Reynolds. $40.
Disorderly Conduct-John Conners, con-
tinued; Henry Meyers IS; Jos. Simmons,
dismissed
Petit Larceny-Stephan Hughes, Cor
nelius Tebin, dismissed; John Fletcher,
James Seegers, $25; Belle Thorp, This.
English, Pat Gibbons, continued; Samuel
Hunter. 80 days.
Miscellaneous-Mo Jackson, AL. John
son, shooting, &C., continued; John Evans
cutting, &C., continued; John Schuele,
malicious destruction Of property, costs;
Cerance Stone. Henry Howard, .Thomas
Lanigan, known gamblers, continued;
John Mace suspicious person, dismissed:
James Thomas, assault and battery, con-
tinued; Ed. Bateman, same, mon his,
suspended; James Rodgers, carrying con-
cealed weapons, $50; George Rieger, abus-
ing family 80 days; Charles Berkheimer,
same, dismissed; Kate Harlow, James
.Jaales, vagrancy, months; Lizzie Tier.
ney, incorrigibility. House of Refuge.
-l COMMON PLEAS.
The case Of Warren T. Roller against Lizzie
Roller for divorce was dismissed.
In the case OF Frank Fox against James Carney,
suit for possession Of horse stable on Fifth
street, Judge Avery allowed reasonable time
TO remove the property.
oliver Perrin and others sgainst the Trustees OF
the Southern Railroad and the City. In this
action, heard by Judge Smith to-day, the plain
tiffs, who are owners of lots abutting on Mclean
avenue, ask an injunction against the use OF the
avenue for railroad purposes, and demand $50, ,O0O
damages for injury 10 their property by the con-
structIon Of the trestlework and the running OF
the locomotives and cars
The Court held that the plaintiffs, by permitting
the avenue to be occupied for the purposes named,
had waived theiI right to inunct on. but they had
the right to civil action fIr damages.
The next question was whether the Trustees Of
the Railroad aud the city could De Joined as De,
iendants ia the same action. The Court held
that as the Trustees represent the city the parties
were the same, and the city could not be joined
in the action as separate defendant, and its
name should be stricken out.
SUPERIOR, ...
In the case of Ulrch VS.. Ulrich, which was SET
for this morning, the parties were not able to pro-
ceed in consequence of the absence OF witness
An attachment was issued for the witness and the
case was laid over until tomorrow. The jury Wal