The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1881-07-02
Circuit Court Proceedings.
Hon. a. Broelss Fleming y ud &C

LaNina remnant, widow, ct ai.-Dc-
cree partitioning the lands of Rich
ard aud VIM. Nj. Tenant amongst
parties thereto entitled.
VIM. /. Protzman VS.. Carrie +. ST.
Clair.-Decree for the sale of the said
Carries interest in her fathers real
estate.
County Con,t of Monongalia coun-
ty, &c, VS.. Coleman Ammons-De
cree for sale of the IL undivided
part of said Coleman Ammons inter
est in his fathers real estate.
Joseph III. Riddle vs.. Hannah NJ.
Riddles ct al--Decree for partition of
the 33 acress of land in the bill men
toned, 10y 5. c, Stewart, Jno. Youst
and VIM. NJ. Arnett appointed Com
missioners for the purpose, (if they
find it practicable to do so land make
report thereof.
James Davis's devisees VS.. +. A.
Coombs' executors, &c.-Decree for
sale of the 1924 acres of land on the
Ices Ferry Pike, by George G. Stur-
giss, appointed Commissioner for
the purpose.
Mary +, Brookover, &c, VS.. Geo.
T. Longs Executors, &c.-Referrcd
to Commissioner of this Court to
settle the accounts of the Executors
of George Il. Long, deceased, &c, and
make report thereof.
b. and d. Chesney VS.. VIM. Ches.
ney's heirs, &c.-By consent, it is
ordered that Alex. L. Hess, admins
traitor of said Chesney, pay to the
parties, or their attorneys, the costs
incurred by them, and the costs of
partition, ont of any funds in his
hands coming to said estate.
Samuel Snider VS.. Elisha Snider ct
al.-This cause has been pending for
more than four years, and no orders
having been made in same but to
continue it, ordered that this cause
be struck from the docket.
Morgantown Bank vs.. Thomas f.
Smith and others.-Forty days leave
to plaintiff to file its special replica
ton to defendant Smiths answer
Thos. j. Anderson VS.. Margaret
Anderson ct al.-Ordercd that the
bill in this cause be dismissed.
Ezekiel Morris and wife VS.. James
II. Kidwcll.-On motion of the plain
tifls this cause is dismissed
Ordered, that jackson Smith ID.
M. Arnett, j. p. Snider Alpheus
Ralphsnider, Silas Arnett, S. r. Mi
chael, Andrew NJ. Arnctt, Alpheus
Rice and Cyrus j. Michael, be APP
pointed trustees of "Snidef's Tenn
ple' Church, in Grant District, this
county.
James. +. IIess's heirs and distrib-
utccs VS.. George w. Johnson.-Or-
dered that the rule in this cause be
dismissed without costs to either par
ty.
Catharine r. Ralphsnider vs. Al
pha and VIM. Observation-Disclosures
to pay over money by the defendants
to the plaintiff for her maintenance.
LAW SIDE.
Mackcy, for use of Jarrett VS.. Rice,
on account; judgment on verdict of
jury for $l32.50.
H. Fenton Rice VS.. Mackey d De
bolt, on account; judgment on ver-
dict Of jury for $l79.80.
'Mecks VS.. Rice, on account; dis
missed at plaintiffs costs.
Lazzcll VS.. Houston and George
w. johnson, was dismissed as to
johnson.
j. w. Holland, assignee of Debolt
vs.. Joe. M. Wood, about ice for Com
mcrcial; q jury was waived and jndg-
ment rendered by the Court against
defendant FOR Spots aud costs
George w. Mcficker VS.. VIM. S.
Cobun, on account; verdict Of jury
for $3t0.S0. Motion for new trial
overruled, and judgment by the Court
for the amount.
Ethelbert johnson vs. Charley
Morgan-account. Plaintiff not APP
pcaring to prosecute his suit, it was
not suited.
Calvin Win confessed for S. Gne
and costs for indictment for q INSIDE
meanOr.
On the appeal of VIM. N. Stewart
VS.. Nelly Newbraugh, the motion to
quash the warrant was overrnled.
Morgan VS.. Hoffman. The case of
Elazan w. Morgan against John II.
Hoffman was called up in the Circuit
Court before Judge Fleming, on Fri
day, June Oath, and the following
jury selected and sworn, viz: San
ford Lemastcrs and George Shriver,
of Battelle; j. G. Brand and VIM. II.
Smyth, of Cass; L. c. Cole and VIM.
Frum, of Grant; Michael Price, of
Clinton; WV. Tapp, Fcstus H.Tapp,
Robert w. Tapp and Elijah Jar
cobs, Of Morgan, and VIM. Bayles of
Union. e,
This is suit against the defend
ant for damages TO the plaintiff for
the seduction Of her daughter Lizzie,
and on behalf of the defendant, who
is prominent and wealthy citizen,
advanced in years, it is claimed to
be an attempt to blackmail. There
were numerous witnesses, the princi-
pal witness for the plaintiff being
Lizzie Morgan, and the principal
witness for the defendant being the
defendant himself, but the details of
the testimony are unfit for pubiica-
ton.