Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1881-04-21

tion should be allowed restraining the
defendant from maintaining such toll
house and collecting Tolls from him.
The injunction was allowed by the Com
mon Pleas and affirmed by this Court.
Cleveland & Pittsburgh r. r. Co. vs.
Jacob A. Stahl. The vehicle of defend
ant was struck by train of plaintiff,
and in suit in the court below YER
dict of $500 was recovered. The court
required plaintiff to remit 5000 of this
sum. Various errors were set up. 1t
was claimed that the court below erred
in allowing, after the evidence was clos
ed and argument commenced an amend
ment as to amount claimed by plaintiff
below. 1t is not claimed that defendant
was prejudiced by the amendment
Again, that court erred in not withdraw
ing from the jury the case at the close
of the testimony, and that the verdict is
not sustained by the testimony. Attach
ed to the bill of exceptions is what pur-
ports to be stenographic report of the
testimony, but it is not made a part of
the bill, and is not certified. The court
is unable to determine whether this is
all the testimony or not. The excep-
tions are incomplete in this particular,
and the judgment of the court below
must be affirmed.
Jehn II. Watkins VS.. Sophia McGrew.
Action for slander. Plaintiff in the
coart below was not bound 10 prove her
social position. The law presumes her
social position was good. The court
finds no error of which plaintiff in
error has right to complain. Thir-
teen requests to be made in the
charge were preferred by defendant in
the court below. When party asks the
court TO charge proposition which is
not law, it is not error to refuse all the
preferred, but it is better to
give that which is law and refuse that
which is not. The court was justified in
refusing to charge as requested. 1t was
not asked to give separately, but as a
whole. The court erred against the
plaintiff below in charging the jury that
they will give her such damages as will
her, and for costs and coun-
sci fees. Nothing was said about wound
ed feelings. Defendant complains be-
cause counsel fees is included. Court
had charged there can be only nominal
damages, where no injury is inflicted
upon plaintiff. No such error in charge
of court as will authorize reversal.
] Judgment of the court below affirmed.
Henry d. Meek VS.. Bellaire Gas-Light
and Coke Co. The plaintiff in error was
Secretary and Superintendent for de-
fendant, and from November, 1875, to
1873, failed to account for
and retained moneys collected for de-
fendant. Plaintiff in error made motion
in court below that defendant in error
be required to make itemized statement
of moneys alleged to have been appro-
priated, and from whom and for what
purpose received. This motion was de-
MED. The court finds no srror in that
The judgment of the court be-
low, $3.50 So against plaintiff in error,
and interest from December 25, 1880, is
affirmed, with penalty and costs.
Franklin Insurance Co. VS.. John III.
Sullivan. This was a suit brought in
the court below on note calling for
$4,000, dated at Bellaire and payable at
Wheeling. Ambrose A. White sets up
that he is creditor of Sullivan, and
that the rats of interest is usurious.
Plaintiff declared that White was not in
to interpose plea of usury,
that he was. The naked question is:
Is a note at g. per cent, payable semi
uSurious? The court is of
opinion it is, and the judgment of the
court below is accordingly affirmed.
Judge Ball delivered dissenting opin-
ion. Plaintiff excepted to the finding of
the court.
Bellaire VS.. Richard Crozier. This
action arose out of contract to erect
and maintain market house. 1t is
claimed that the city had no power to
make such contract. The city has power
to erect and maintain a market, but can it
such authority Contracts which
are in their nature ultra Uires, when ex-
ecuted, the parties are estopped. 1t is
against public policy for council to un-
dertake to find the legitimate legislation
of succeeding councils. The council
must see that order is preserved in and
about the markeI house. Looking at
the amount of recovery in this case the
judgment may well be sustained, and
We may conclude that the amount of
the verdict may have been for want Of
preserving order. Viewing the judg-
ment and verdict in the light we do, the
judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Theresa Eisenberg VS.. Marx Albert
and Melissa Albert. Mrs. Albert owned
real estate, and, with her husband, mort
gagged it to secure debt of the husband.
1t is claimed by her that the mortgage is
because the owner of the
claim extended the debt an indefinite
period. The weight of the evidence in
this case is that there was in January,
1876, an agreement to extend the note
until the succeeding October, in consid-
GRAFTON of payment of interest up to that
time, and payment of attorneys fees in
proceedings to collect note. The
weight of the evidences is that the time
of payment was extended. The conclu-
sion is that the effect is to release that
land, and the court decrees accordingly
and the case is dismissed.
Jos. Bamford VS.. Harrison Butte ct al.
Finding that plaintiff has first lien on
H. Bute's half interest; order of sale.
Benz. Robinson VS.. Samuel p. Work
man ct al. Reformation of deed ami
judgment below affirmed.
Geo. Starbuck VS.. John G. Hoyle ct al
Finding against E. B. Hoyle. Cause re-
manded for execution.
Henry Cook ct al, Exrs, vs.. VIM. W.
Hollett, Admr. Judgment same as in
common pleas court.
E. G. Morgan, Assignee, VS.. David
Smith ct al. Appeal. Finding in favor
of David Smith. Decree land TO be sold
by sheriff as upon execution, and pro-