The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1893-10-26
Opinion by Judge Jenner in
the Albright Case,
Strictly Proper to Introduce Sny
der's Letters to Ida Roof,
The Verdict of the Lower Court
Unanimously Sustained.

mended TO the Supreme Oourt-other
Circuit Court Decisions.
Az O'Clock Friday night, Judges Fol-
lett, Jenner and Pomereue decided the
cases which had been tried in the circuit
court during tue weak.
The case OF Christian Wagner against
Canton was first heard. Wagner averreo
that he was damaged $500 because OF q
change of grade in DueDer avenue. Wag-
ner eIlegeu that he exercised reasonable
care in tue erection of his building, but
that council went ahead and damaged
his property in the sum named. he al
legged insutticlency OF notice, but Judge
Jenner, VINO delivered the opinion, read
the notice Wagner received, which was
brief but 20 the point. Tne question was
whether mere notice directing him 20
the engineers office 10 examine the plans
was sufficient, or whether IL was necessary
for the notice to set fo-ih iusi what was
contemplated in the Improvement, and
whether his property would be damaged.
Judge Jsnnsr said that Is was necessary
20 set forth all the material points in the
contemplated Improvement and that
citizen need not go 10 pubic ONCE
TO hnd out how much ne Will pe
damaged, but thst the notice should set
forth the exact grade line az it Will be
after the direct is improved. The notice
given to Wagner was held not to be a
legal notice, and she court revereed the
lower court. Solicitor Collins asked that
an exception be noted.
THE sNYDER-ALBRIeHT CASE,
The case came up to the circuit court on
error. Judge Jeuner delivered the opinion
of the court. On she point OF whether she
verdict was supported by the
evidence she court declined to
to interfere. The letters written 10y Sny-
der to Albright and written by Snyder 80
Ida Roof were discussed by the court.
Snyder had acknowledged that he wrote
them, Judge Jenner stated that the lower
court may have erred in hio reason Tor
allowing the Roof letters to 90 Ia evidence
but IL was not material whether the LeaN
sons given were the correct ones, IL the
thing itself was the correct thing TO do.
Judge Jeuner did not doubt but that ahe
Roof letterG affected the verdict, the con-
dition of Snyder's home being stated dltN
ferent In the Roof letters than II was IN
the letters TO Albright, where Snyder said
his happiness had been destroyed. No
matter why the court had allowed the let
Iers 10 be introduced, the question wcs
whether it was really Ibe correct thing 20
introduce them ia evidence. The EdniE-
sion of fSnyder's letters TO Albright, setting
forth what happy home he had and how
much he was DANA aged by Aibrighps al
legged invasion, was the excuse given Tor
introducing the Roof letters, to qualify or
weaken the plaintiffs case. Judge Jen-
ner w0s very clearly OF the opinion, as
was Judges Follett and Pomerene that the
Roof letters were properly admitted in
evidence on cross examination and the
judgment OF the lower court, Judge Tay-
lor, WAC affirmed, and Snyder was again
baked in his effort to collect 5000 on
the note in controversy. Snyder's at
torneys asked that exceptions be noted.
GRIFFITH AGAINST BAUM.
In the case Of Frances Griffith VS. Levi
Baum, Judge Jenner handed down the
decision. Griffith had his life insured for
$500, made out in favor OF Levi Baum.
Afterwards Griffith was married to tbe
plaintiff in this action aud later vas
killed. Baum attempted TO collect on the
policy, and the widow set forth that her
husband had in this will urned over the
policy to her, The court decided in favor
of Frances Griffith, saying that while the
current of authorities was the other way,
Ohio hadn't held that way, and the lower
court was therefore reversed.
CONCERNING A CONTRACT.
Judge Pomerene handed down the de.
cision in the cRoe OF the Royal Brick Com
pAny against Edward DooIsn. The con-
trovsrsy was on contract, where Doolan
claimed q balance Of Si30 05, thu company
claiming to have paid the amount in full.
The Gaze was decided in favor of DoolAn
In the lower court, but owing to error In
Judge McCArty's charge, the case was re-
versed.
RoMMEL AGAINST EBERLY.
Judge Pomersne rendered. the decision
in the case of William Rommel against
Isaac Eberly d Co., grocery jobbers at
Columbus, to reverse the decision of the
lower court, which gave judgment Ia
favor of Eberly & Co. R3mmel was
surety for Henry Cook upon o bond to
pay the debts of the late hrm of Mans.
field q Cook. among which was the claim
of Eberly q Co. for Sl20. The error as
signed was an alleged releGse signed by
Mansfield to Rommsl in consideration Of
$500. The common pleas was reversed
and the case goes back to the lower
court.
LOTUS AGAINST ALLIANCE.
In delivering the opinion of the case of
John LOTUS and his bondsmen sgainst the
city of Alliance. an action brought by
LOTUS to reverse the lower court, Judge
Eollett recitad tho circumstances in the
case. Lotus was found guilty of illegal
liquor srlliu9 and the mayor of Alliance
fined Linn $500 aud coats, to stand COM
miITsd to the Cleveland workhouse until
the fine and cost0 were paid. LOTUS did
not have the funds at that time but the
mayor agreed TO accept surety. Two
citizens signed 8s surety and LOTUS
was not sent to the workhouse. Tne
bond was given to the effect that II the
higher court affirmed the mayor in his
decision as to the fue, which was ia ex-
cess of the statute provision, but In &c
cord with an ordinance OF the city, the
hue and costs would be paid. The
case came up before Judge Pease,
who decided that the fine was ia
excess of what the law allowed. The case
went TO the Supreme court and Judge
Peaae WAS reversed. The city of Alliance
then brought suit TO collect the amount OF
the fine and costs. The common pleas
court gave judgment for the amount,
Judge McCarty presiding. LOTUS then
went TO the circuit court and in the deci-
sion rendered last evening Judge McCsrty
was sustained and the decision was made
that the Mayor Of Alliance bad the right
to assess the fine and costs and had au~
thority TO accept the bond.
THE JAooBY CASE.
James JAcoby sued In circuit court 10
reverse the lower court on decision In
favor Of Josiah Jacoby and his bondsmen,
the case involving something over 5000.
Josiah Jacoby was the administrator of
James Jacoby's estate but was either re'
moved OF resigned. When the new ad'
ministration took hold he alleged that
there was about s6 900 that wasn't ac-
counted for by Josiah Jscoby, the retiring
administrator and he sued Josiah Jacoby
enc his bondamen for the amount. Josiah
set up she claim that at the time he relin-
quisned the ndminiatratorship there was
abb oiutely NO estate with the exception Of
q worthless note for So 700, held against
parties who were wholly and hopeleHsIy
insoIvsnt The bondsmen thought they
should not be held responsible for such
notes, the estate having lost nothing as
the note In question was worthless and
shore was no other estate to administer
a&c,A The lower court. Judge TAYLOR