West Virginia freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1881-1886, 1881-12-14
CIRCUIT COURT.
Some Important Cases and Nice
Points Disposed Of.

AAa'VhS viz N"SS' oh>e hhos
ters of law and equity having the
attention of the Court and Bar,
during the special term just closed,
we might mention a quar.ette that
elected a good share of attention
and interest.
FIRST. The noted case of Deem
VS.. King ought to be stereotyped
and the plates nailed up with the
finger-boards at every crossroads in
the State as a solemn warning to
all the good people against the folly
of going to law for spite.
These parties were brothers-in-
law and disputed about their ac-
counts. Deem sued King in 1879,
and judgment went by default
against him for some $50, with
privilege of proving setts-otf before
a commissioner. Dispositions were
taken before the commissioner cost
ing nearly $50, resulting in re-
port in favor of King against Deem
for balance of about $3.50. After
the parties attended Court term af-
ter term, the Court sustained ex-
ceptions to the report and placed
the case back on the docket for tri-
al, where it has been pending
again for year bringing the par
ties to Court, Deem from Calhoun
county, at great expense, each to
keep the other from getting some
legal advantage, but neither ever
ready for trial.
Finally, having worn each other
out, the counsel got them to kiss,
make up, and compromise, which
they were glad to do, and the suit
was dismissed, each party paying
his own cost.
SECOND. A novel point came up
in the case of Tracewell vs.. John
son, on appeal. 1t was an action
in detinue for the possession of a
horse. The death of the horse be-
ing suggested the Court held that
the action must abate. We didn't
hear His Honor's opinion, but pre-
sumo the point was that the ligi-
tants must follow the horse to get
jurisdiction. AS the corpus has
gone down the raging flood to the
Gulf, we are not advised whether
the suitors will follow.
THIRD. The case of G. w. Hutch
inson VS.. The City of Parkersburg,
for damages to a lot by the fill on
Pike Street, was hotly contested
Hutchinson and Mcclure for plain
tiff, Loomis and Tavennor for the
City. The jury found $50 for the
plaintiff, which seemed to satisfy
none of the parties, generally, pretty
good reason to suppose the verdict
pretty nearly correct
FOURTH. The case of The LIST
National Bank VS.. D. H. Leonard
and Sam'l Johns, was watched with
much interest, being stubbornly
contested and turning on some very
nice legal points of law concerning
commercial paper.
The action was on a negotiable
note for $21O in the hands of the
bank, discounted for Mr.. Leonard,
as an innocent holder before matu-
rity without notice of fraud.
Johns interposed plea setting
up fraud in the procurement of the
note, charging that by artifice and
misrepresentation he was induced
to signlthe paper, supposing it to be
a simple promissory note, in &C
cordance with a written contract
exhibited, whereby he agreed with
H. K. White & Co., proprietors of a
patent washer, to order and sell 6
dozen washers, so much to be paid
on them when sold, and the balance
amounting to $210, in four months,
the note not to be payable unless,
nor until, the machines were sold.
Plaintiff held that having admit
ted his signature, defendant was
bound to pay the note in the hands
of third party. Sands, Caldwell
and Smith represented plaintiff,
Hutchinson and Vandervort for de-
PENDANT Johns.
The case was submitted on in
structions and the jury in a few
minutes found for the Bank against
Leonard for the amount Of the
note, and on the issues joined found
for the defendant, Sam'l Johns.