The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1883-03-22

went to the house Of his brother-in-
law, Lewis Mapes, who lives near, and
told him about it, and the words re-
lied upon were the words spoken to
Mapes. These were, that she had
committed adultery with Foster. He
told various other parties the same
thing, in substance. The defense
made an effort to prove the truth OF
the words, and the woman's character
and reputation were vigorously at
tackled.
The Court said that the same rules
must govern that would have gov
erned a jury, had this been a jury
trial. That the offense, If any, had
been committed in Jackson county,
Ohio, on or about the time charged,
November 10th, 1888, had been es-
tablished beyond reasonable doubt.
That the words. substantially as set
out in the indictment, had been spok-
en- by defendant, Of and concerning
the prosecuting witness, Mrs. Howe,
had also been proven to sufficient
certainty. The female must be per-
son of good repute. The testimony
of JEFF. Foster and Sarah Burton, who
testified to specific acts Of adultery,
was so unreasonable, as to be entitled
to little or no weight. An attempt
was made to show that just after the
marriage of Mrs Howe, there was
some scandal about letter she was
said to have received from a man
named Barbee; but there was no
evidence to show that there was any,
thing improper in the letter, or that
she ever answered it. It was shown
that Barbee was former suitor of
Mrs. Howe, then Miss Starr, and that
he perhaps did not know of her mar
riage, and that there was nothing i'm
proper on the part of either. The
raking up Of so fimsy a charge show
ed that perhaps no serious charge
could be made, and it rather added to
her reputation. Taking all the eyi-
dence, it might be said that Mrs.
Howe, up to the recent scandal, was a
woman Of fair average reputation.
The words spoken must have been
malicious. The evidence showed that
they were mostly spoken to the rela-
tives, and apparently to get the mat
ter in some way adjusted, Or settled.
There is no evidence that there was
ever any difficulty or i'll feeling be-
tween the defendant and his sister-in-
law, but they appeared to have been
on as good terms as ought to exist
between a man and his brothers wife.
The Court could not say that there
appeared to be any malice, either ex-
press or implied, and the defendant
must be discharged.
Jefferson Howe VS.. Louisa Howe.
This was a petition for divorce, charg-
ing adultery with one jeff. Foster, a
colored man. The defendant filed an
answer and cross petition, denying
the adultery, but charging the plaintiff
with adultery with one Sarah Burton,
and also with extreme cruelty, in
striking her, and also that he and two
of his brothers, and cousin, named
Clark Darling, had come to her house
in the night, and with shot gun and
revolyers, had threatened to kill her,
and compelled her to get out of bed
and leave the house, and her children.
The testimony is too yoluminous,
and too nasty to report. The Court,
in deciding the case, said that the
adultery had not been proven, on
either side, although there were sus-
picious circumstances proven on both
sides. Neither party was entitled to
divorce. The plaintiff owns land,
worth $1,000. Defendant had fur
nished, as the share she had received
from her fathers estate, $500 Of the
purchase money that went into this
land. Plaintiff would be required to
pay defendant this sum Of $500, and
to pay the costs. There arr four
children, the oldest fourteen years,
and the youngest some seven or eight
months old. For the present, the
plaintiff will be decreed the custody
of the oldest two children, and the
defendant the youngest two.
The First National Bank of Jack
son, Ohio, VS.. Huron Iron Company
and Chris F. Bertsch. Judgment for
S1,51775, and Chris F. Bertsch certi-
fed as surety.
Same VS.. same. Judgment for
S1,O22.2 20.
Nathan Lowenstein VS.. The Ohio
Southern Railroad Co. This was an
action for 1915, for killing SOW. The
answer claimed that the hog was killed
within the depot yard, and that the
Company are not required by law to
have the yard fenced. Jury waived
and tried by the Court. Judgment
for plaintiff.
On Saturday morning a special
Grand Jury was called, consisting OF
the following persons: Lot Davies
Benjamin Trago, Thomas A. Jones
john Steele, James R. Hunter, John
II. Rogers, Charles W. Goshen, w