The Pioche weekly record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1877-1900, 1896-05-07
DISTRICT COURT.

Friday, Nay 1.-The case Of the State vs..
C. A. Horn, indicted for perjury, came up
for disposition. In this case the defendant
was convicted at the December sitting Of the
crime mentioned, in swearing to = complaint
charging the firm Of J. Eesbitt 4 Bro. with
insolvency, done presumably 10 insure the
the issuance Of writ Of injunction on the
Cedar Springs in . case between Horn and
the Eesbitt L Bro. firm. The public il
familiar with the case and the criminal trial
which followed. A new trial was granted
Horn on application, on the ground that
the evidence was insufficient to sustain the
verdict. On this the District Attorney
stated TO the court that no new evidence
had been secured in the case. and with the
courts consent asked that the case be dis
missed. The court stated that 10 his opin.
ion the defendant wAs not guilty Of such
perjury % the statute contemplated. and
90 ordered the case to be stricken from the
eaIandsr and the bondsmen released.
Saturday, May 2.-The case Of Ellen
Mathews Va. Mark Mathews, an action for
divorce, came on for trial. The case was
heard before the court with closed doors and
occupied most Of the day. At the oonclus.
ion Of the evidence the court granted de-.
cree Of divorce As prayed for, giving the
mother custody Of the eldest child. girl.
and awarding the custody Of the two small
boys to the father. no slinony being
awarded to plaintiff.
Monday, May 4th.-The case Of Dave
Francis and Jimmie Hollinger against Chas.
Lytls, TO recover possession Of two-thirds Of
the Gold Bug and IdIewild mining locat-
ions at State Line district. came on for trial
before the court without jury. The plain
tiffs contended that they were induced by
false representations on the part Of Lytle TO
execute to him for $50 each an agreement to
SELL and that he went into possession Of the
property having concealed from them knowl.
edge Of discovery Of rich ore and foat on
the claim; that when they discovered this
they rescindsd the contract Of sale and ten.
dered Lyle back his money which he re.
fused to accept Lytle testified that he
made no false representations to the plain.
tiffs but bought the interests openly, and
that though the claims were full Of promise,
nothing Of great value had been yet discov'
cred. though much work had been done, and
asked for the execution Of q deed to him
The conrt took the case under advissmen
and has not yet filled any decision.
Tuesday, May 5.-Ths suit of Eliza Cul
verwell vs. Charles Culverwell. occupied
the entire day. Plaintiff sued for divorc
on the grounds Of cruelty and failure to pro
vide. Defendant also prayed for decree o
divorce against plaintiff on the ground o
cruel treatment. etc. In the evidence sub
mitted both appeared to sustain the charge
alleged, except Of the failure to provide, an
the decree of divorce was entered almest Q
matter Of course. The plaintiff asked tbs
she be given the DsLamar lodging house
but it appeared that all the property owns
was partnership property blonging TO th
firm of VIM. Culverwell and Bros, includ
ing the lodging house mentioned, and tbs
the Meadow Valley ranch was acquire
prior to the marriage, and therefore plainti
was not entitled to share in at all. The d.
cree finally entered awarded plaintiff on'
half the lodging house and furniture, tn
other half remaining the property Of Wu
Culverwell, and awarded Chas. Culverwel
the defendant, half interest in the Helen
saw mill property. The mother was aware
ed the custody Of the minor girl child, viii
the custody Of the two minor boys vi
awarded to the father. On the matter
costs each party was asked to submit bi
of expenses incurred. when that point woul
also be passed upon.