The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1885-06-04
COURT.

: In the case of Wilmink We
. Slisher, the jury returned yer
dict of guilty to the Court orally
. A motion was made by counse
for defense to set this verdic
aside on the ground that th'
manner of returning the verdic
was irregular, and that il wa
against the weight of the evi
dence. The motion was over
ruled-the Court saying tha
, while it was we'll satisfied tha
the manner of returning the yer
dict was irregular because not il
conformity to the statute regulat
ing the form and manner of re
turning a verdict in civil suit
vet the time for counsel 10 make
objection to such verdict wa:
at the time OF the rendition
Upon the other ground, the Court
said that while the evidence was
very conflicting, there was not
that clear weight of testimony
against the verdict that Court
would require to set it aside. The
Court assessed a judgment oi
$3.50 and costs, Slisher to stand
committed until judgment and
costs be paid.
| In the case of Johnston VS.
Leach, the Court found for the
plaintiff.
In the case Of Arson Watts VS.
Elizabeth Collision, there was an
order of partition. Commission
ers, Oliver Lehman, John Shaw
and Nick Bowers.
rennyhill VS. Fox was a, suit to
enforce a mechanics lien. The
facts are as follows: Flavius
Wright contracted to sell Frank
Dixon a piece of ground lying
east of town, for which Dixon
was to pay him s50-$1O down.
and So per month until paid
As soon as the contract of pur-
chase was complete, Dixon hired
the plaintiff to put him up a
dwelling house on the premises.
which he did, and thereafter per-
fected his lien by filing the same
with-the Recorder. Dixon, after
paying s26 of the purchase mon-
ey, became in default, and altho'
he afterwards made a tender of
the balance of the purchase mon
ey with interest, Wright refused
to receive it, claiming his right
to a forfeiture. There was no
clause of forfeiture in the con
tract-and afterwards decided the
land to the Foxes, defendants in
the case.
The position of the defense was
that as the lien was only on the
interest the person had in the
land with whom the mechanic
contracted, the plaintiff must fail
for the reason shat all of Dix
on's right in the premises was
DESTROYED by his failure to pay
the balance OF Tie purchase mon
ey.-that it WAS such a noncom-
pliance with the terms of the
contract as marked a forfeiture.
The Court held that Dixon
failure TO complete the payments
at the times agreed upon in the
contract did not in itself work a
forfeiture. That in order to for
felt land sold under contract,
especially where a portion of the
purchase money has been paid,
and where there is no provision
in the contract for forfeiture,
the strictest rules must be com
piled with. In this case Wright
would have had to tender per-
formance of his part of the con-
tract, to wit: the deed for the
premises-and would have had
to fix day certain, which must
have been after such a lapse of
time as the Court would deem
reasonable, after which. unless
the terms of the contract were
complied with, it should be for
felt. AS he had not done this, it
would be the greatest iniqnlty 10
allow him i'll this way To acquire
property at an enhanced value of
three or four hundred dollars
As the Foxes were purchasers
with notice hey stood ia Wri ght's
shoes, and hence il was HE right
of the plaintiff to lender lie bal
ance Of the purchase money with
interest due Wright on the con
tract TO the defendants and en-
force his lien on The premises
Judgment for plai,.tiif and order
of sale.
Sarah Vars VS. Theodore Vars.
Divorce.
The case of Friend VS. Feather
oil, and demulcr 10 The amend
ed petition.
o. w. H. Wright. admir-. VS.
Wm. Williams, admir-. WAS ar
gned before Judge Sib!ev. bGt no
judgnicn: has as yet been rem
Tered.
In he case Of Elias Clark. g:
a., VS. Tie starr Board vi Eluca !!
lion. a demurrer 10 the petition |