The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1882-06-08
Court of Common Pleas.

Lew DUNCAN VS.. James Sherrlck.
Sale confirmed and deed ordered.
Levi Howell, administrator, VS..
Francis Moles. Sale confirmed and
deed ordered.
Emma r. Pierce VS.. Clinton John
son. Bastardy Jury trial. The
parties reside in Franklin township,
and are near neighbors, and have been
on intimate terms as neighbors. john
son is married man, and has two
children. The plaintiff is an unmar-
ried woman, aged II years, and on
the 6th day of May, 1882, her child
was born. She testified that defend
ant had OH one or two former occa-
sions, made improper proposals to her,
and on the 5th Of September last, at
her fathers house, the act was done.
The defendent denied the charge,
under oath, and there were several
witnesses, on each side, and there was
an unusual amount Of perjury COM
mitted. 1t seemed like only two or
three Of all the witnesses made any
effort to tell the truth.
Verdict guilty. Moore & Atkinson
and J. L. Jones for plaintiff; J. A.
Aleshire, Irvine DUNCAN and Levi
DUNCAN for defendant.
Lewis A. Lawson VS.. Martha J.
Lawson. This was a petition for di-
vorce, charging adultery with one
Griffin Chavous. The parties are all
colored persons. Divorce granted,
and custody Of children given to
plaintiff. David Davis for petitioner.
Elliott Osborne VS.. Amanda Os-
borne. This was petition for di-
vorce, charging adulter with one
Crandall. The parties resided in Jack
son, and Crandall boarded at the
house of Osborne, and an intimacy
grew up between Mrs. Osborne and
Crandall. He was called as witness,
and when asked about this intimacy,
refused to answer, as he said it would
criminate him. The Court said he
must answer. He was then asked if
he had committed adultery with Mrs.
Osborne, and he. said he had not.
There was other testimony offered,
including letters between the parties.
The Court held that the conduct Of
the parties made out case of adul-
terry, Notwithstanding the denial Of
Crandall. Divorce granted, and Gus
tody of children given to petitioner.
J. A. Aleshire for petitioner.
Josephine Graham VS.. johnson
Graham. Petition for divorce, charg-
ing willful absence for more than
three years. The evidence showed
that the.parties were married about
thirteen years ago, and had five chill
dren. Three years ago last fall de-
fendant went away, and has not been
heard from since he left.
Divorce granted, custody of chill
dren given to petitioner, with $40O
alimony. J. A. Aleshire for petit
toner.
George Coon VS.. Harriet Coon ct al.
Sale confirmed and deed ordered.
Hiram G.. Lasley VS.. J. M. Milburn.
Submitted to the Court, and judg-
ment for plaintiff, for $9,4O5.14.
David I'll. Warren vs.. John Warren
ct al. Sale confirmed and deed Or
dered.
Jane Burnsides VS.. John Burnsides.
Order Of partition issued, returnable
forthwith.
Michael O'Brien VS.. John King jr.,
Receiver of M. & C. R. R. On a cer-
tain Sunday, freight train was run
ming on this road, and plaintiff S
heifer was on the track. The whistle
sounded when the train was within
so yards of the heifer, but the train
was not checked, or not so as to be
noticed. 1t was long distance until
the train reached and struck her
Verdict for plaintiff for $500.
Hiram G.. Lasley VS.. Harvey Wells
Judgment on promisory notes fol
So, 9,405.14.
Hiram G.. Lasley VS.. Samuel N
Yeoman. Judgment for SO, ,4O5.14.
William Cochran VS.. Mary Coch-
ran. Petition for divorce; charge
adultery with Eli Brooks. Decree Of
divorce granted. E. B. Bingham fo,
petitioner. E.
Davis Mackley VS.. 0. S. R. R. Jury
waived, and tried by the Court
Plaintiff had a calf running on the
commons, and on the 29th day oi
September, 1881, the calf strayec
upon the railroad track near the resi-
dence of Levi DUNCAN, where train
ran over it and killed it. The value
of the calf was SIS.
There was a statute enacted in th'
spring of 1881 requiring railroad com
panies to fence their roads, and i
roads are not fenced, the companie
are liable absolutely for all stool
killed or injured. The Court hell
that under this statute it is not neces
sary for the owner Of stock to show
that he is not negligent in permitting
his stock to run at large. nor is b,