The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1890-01-04
THE COURT HOUSE.
Some New Cause.-The October Term Al
most Ended General business.

b. Rice, which have their origin in
the Al0nZo >. Black assignment. One
is an assumpsit suit and the other is a
suit in chancery. The complainant in
both Of these bills Is Chase Fowler,
assignee of AlonZo 5. Black. The story
Of Blacks assignment has been told
over and over again by the papers OF
this county, and an investigation of
his finances at the time put him in a
very uncomfortable position in the
eyes of the public. He borrowed money
everywhere, but at the time of the
hearing testified that he did not know
where the money went to-he spent it
and that was enough.
The defendant in the asSumpSit suit
is Samuel A. Black, and $500 damages
is claimed by plaintiff. AlOnZo Black
he had given his son, William G..
ward gave this to Samuel Black, the
eldest son. The plaintiffs contend
that the money was given William at
a time when AlonzO knew he would
have TO make an assignment, hence it
rightfully belongs to the creditors and
should be turned over to the assignee.
| Clarinda Black ct al. is the defend
ant in the chancery suit. This bill is
brought to construe deed given by
Samuel and Clarinda Black. The deed
was drawn up in 1875 by Samuel Black,
who is now dead. A plat Of land con-
tanning eighty acres, situated in the
northern part of this county, accord
ing to the StipulationS Of the deed, was
reserved for Samuel and Clarinda
Black This Wife until their death, when
it was to go to Alonzo 5. Black (their
son. and on his death it was to pass
to his heirs. AS stated, Samuel
Black has since died, but Mrs.
Black is still living. The title to this
eighty acres of land is not clear, and
the assignee wants the deed construed
in a manner which will make his
duty more plain.
| Mr.. Rice contends deed made to Il
man and his heirs carries the whole
| title to the man, and that AlOnZO ).
| Black now holds the land in fee. The
question arises as to whether or not
| AlOnzO has any claim on the land un-
| til after his mothers death? AS long
as she lives the title is with her, and
it is the opinion that this land cannot
of AlonzO 5. Black.
Mrs. Mary Murtha has been a resi-
dent Of Ottawa for over thirty years.
She married Andrew Murtha in May,
1856, and in the same month, 1879, she
left his house, and the couple have
not lived together since. In the bill
Mrs. Murtha charges Andrew with
cruelty. She alleges he frequently
kicked, beat and abused her, and also
drove her from the house. In July,
1876, it is alleged, Murtha threatened
to shoot his wife, and at this time
she was compelled to leave the house
for several days. In 1877 she filed
bill for divorce in the Circuit Court
but dismissed it in 1878. 1t is claimed
that the children of complainant per-
suaded her to dismiss the suit. They
went to live together again. In
April, 1879, Mrs. Murtha claims An
drew struck her over the head with a
plank, and the injuries received kept
her confined to the house for several
days afterward She left her husband
after this, and refused to live with
him any longer.
Mrs. Murtha claims Andrew would
him. She asks for divorce and
wants alimony. Mayo & Widmer are
attorneys for the complainant. Both
the parties are well known in Ottawa,
and live on the west side. Mr..
Murtha is about 20 years old, and
owns property valued at $4,000. The
couple have several daughters who
are all married and reside with their
husbands in this city. Mrs. Murtha,
being Roman Catholic, did not like
to pray for divorce, and gives this as
her reason for not prosecuting the suit
filed in 1879.
j. Ivor Montgomery, attorney for
Nellie f. Fish, filed bill for divorce
against Minard j. Fish Monday. The
PARTIES live in Worthwhile, and were
married in Sandwich in June, 1880, by
Rev. George w. Cross, and in 1886
Fish left his wife, and said he was go
ing to Chicago to look for employment.
A child was born to Mrs. Fish in
January, 1887. Fish absented himself
from his family, as his wife alleges,
and she was compelled to support her
self. She met Fish in Chicago the
same year, and asked him to return
home, but it is alleged he refused to
do so. Mrs. Fish claims that Fish
married a young girl in Chicago in the
fall of 1887. and one child was born to
them. 1t is stated she visited the
mother and sister of Mrs. Fish No.
in Sandwich in 1888, and informed
them Of her marriage with Fish. His
whereabouts are unknown at present.
Mary e. ManniX has filed two suits
against prominent saloon-keepers of
Spring Valley and Peru. Duncan,
| O'COnOr & Gilbert are her attorneys.
Augustine Perona, Henry HOcmer and
Lawrence Christopher are defendants
| in the first suit and Owen b. Dolan,
Paul j. Smith and Christian Henning
are defendants in the other Mrs.
Mannix claims $4,000 damages in each
case. She alleges that they sold her
husband, James Mannix, liquor, and
she has suffered much at his hands
while he was under the influence of
the same. The men who, it is claimed,
sold the liquor are held to be respon-
sible. Dolan & Smith are saloon
keepers in Spring Valley and Henning
| is their bondsman. PerOna and Chris
topher are also Saloon-keepers and
Henry Hoemer is their bondSman.
Hoemer is the present mayor of Peru.
Mrs, ManniX is an Ottawa girl, and