The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-03-02
CIRCUIT COURT
WORKING AWAY.
Hearing Cases That Had Had
Been Heard In Lower Courts.
ARE MAKING MUCH PROGRESS.
Numerous Matters OF interest Come Up In
the Court House-what the
Judges Are Accom-
plishing.


The circuit court on Wednesday heard
the case of ]. l.. Russell against Thos.
e. Mcpherson ct al. Russell Is an Alli-
ance grocer. He got judgment for $40
against Mcpherson for a grocery bill.
About this time Mcpherson turned over
his real estate to his sons. Russell sued
to have the transfer set aside and the
property appropriated to the payment
of his claim. Judge Taylor, in the lower
court decided the transfer should stand
court on appeal. Witnesses were ex-
amined on both sides Of the contro-
versy Wednesday afternoon.
The case Of John c. zutavern against
John J. Shultz ct al. was then taken up.
Plaintiff had a judgment against the
defendant for $780, shultz had no prop
erty he could get at and he claimed that
Margaret and Mary Shultz had prop
erty belonging to Shultz and he sued
for reckoning and to have all such
trust money applied on the debt. The
lower court gave him judgment for
case.
THE ASSIGNMENT.
Judge McCarty will put in full week
next week hearing cases. An assign
ment was issued Thursday and sixteen
suits marked for trial. The assignment
is as follows:
Monday, March 5-Hearing motion
docket.
Tuesday, March 6-B. Dannemiller &
Sons VS.. Canton Cooperative Grocery
Co. Allott VS. Streeter ct al. Gilliland's S
admr. VS. Gilliland. Cradle VS. Cradle.
Wednesday, March 7-Karper ct al VS.
Bowers ct al. Rose VS. Burckle. Beck
VS. Beck. Buchanan VS. Buchanan.
Thursday, March S-Madison VS. Madi-
son. Spangler VS. Spangler. Frease VS.
Canton Stoneware Co. ct al. Gates VS.
Gates.
Friday, March 9-Bailey VS. Bailey
Steinmetz VS. Steinmetz. Snyder VS.
Hair. Buttermore VS. Clapper ct al.
GOT NO HOMESTEAD.
Judge McCarty Tuesday morning han
ded down a decision in the case of Dit
mer VS. Braucher. The point at issue
was over a claim of Braucher of home
stead exemption of $500. Braucher mar.
ried in 1872 and for several years lived
on farm belonging to his wife. During
this time several judgments were lodged
against him and action taken to collect
them out of his share of his deceased ia.
theirs undivided estate. In 1888 the pri-
ority of liens was established and the
court decreed that his debts should come
out Of his share of the estate. The
Braucher's wife died. He married agair
and this time did not have homestead
He then tried to have his homestead
exemption set out of the state. Judge
McCarty decided that the records OF
the court could not be gone back Of in
this manner and excluded him from the
homestead exemption.
AN OIL WELL SUIT.
John T. Atwood is plaintiff in a law
suit started Thursday morning, against
James Welch and John L. Arnold. The
plaintiff says he dug an oil we'll for tho
defendants at Scio and that they still
owe him $5S7 on the Job. The plain
tiff is represented by Attorneys John H
White, McCarty, Craine & Mcdowell
and c. C. Upham.
DOUGLASS RETURNS.
Judge Douglass returned Thursday
morning and for the first time this term
all of the judges of the circuit bench are
in court. The first case taken up Thurs
day morning was that of Martin Grimes
ct al VS.. The City of Alliance ct al. The
Morgan Engineering company wanted
to build an addition to their shops and
asked the city council to vacate a street
hot ,CrI, fInfV
council vacated the street and then
Grimes and other property owners sued
for an injunction to stop the city and
the company from obstructing the
street. The common pleas court granted
the injunction and the case came to the
circuit court on appeal Attorney Hug
gins of Columbus and Fording of ALI
ance represent the city and the Morgan
Engineering Co., and Attorney Roach
the property owners.