The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-03-12
Council Was Authorized
to Remove Members.
the CIRCUIT COURT
Afflrms the Finding Of the Low.
Or Tribunal--Other lmpor-
tant Cases Passed
uoon.

Upon.
Decisions were handed down by the
circuit court Saturday morning in five
cases. some Of them of unusual local in
terest. The first was the case of August
Ditmer against Daniel r. Braucher and
others. The main contention was over
homestead that Braucher claimed,
and the court held that as the defendant
was married at the time of the last ex-
ecution and sale of the property he was
| clearly entitled to his homestead ex-
emption of $500. This is q reversal of
the lower courts finding. Attorneys
Lynch and Pomerene represented the
plaintiffs, and Sterling & Braucher the
defendant.
THE DUEBER CASE.
The decision Of the lower court was
affirmed In the case of the Dueber
| Watch Case company against w. J.
PierO as trustee of Mrs. 8. J. Heck
linger. The case grew out of share of
stock that 1t Is claimed was originally
given to John A. Coburn, with the un-
| derstanding that he was to transfer It
back to the company. He held 1t nino
| or ten years and sold 1t to another
party. 1t changed hands number of
times, eventually getting into the poses-
sion of Mrs. Hecklinger. The Watch
Case company wanted 1t to be returned
without consideration, which precipi-
tated the suit. Judge Douglass held
that when stock was on the market in
nocent purchasers should be protected,
and the company has no right to recov-
er the certificate. and that the present
holder has valid title to the stock.
MASSILLON COAL. CASE.
The case of w. e. N. Hemperly
against James F. Pocock and others
was passed upon by Judge Donahue.
The question was as to whether the
plaintiff was entitled to partition of
certain coal lands in which he held an
interest through a release that was
practically, the court held. transfer.
The lower court held that plaintiff was
not entitled to partition. but the cir
cult court reversed the common pleas
finding and decided that anyone having
property interest could ask for parti-
tion, and that the court was not the
proper authority to say whether 1t could
be divided without manifest injury, but
that commission should be appointed
for such purpose, as provided for by the
statutes. A. A. Thayer represented the
plaintiff and Lynch e McCaughey the
defendant.
CONSIDERATION VALID.
The case Of Martha ]. Winning s guar
dian against Louis A. Bloomfield and
others was passed upon by Judge Vor-
hees. The case grew out of a note and
mortgage that John G. Schaeffer gave
to his wife, and 1t was contended by his
creditors that the note and mortgage
were given to delay and defraud his
creditors; but the court held that there
was abundant proof that the wife's
father, from whom Scheffer had secured
the farm. had given the wife three
thousand dollar interest In the prop
erty, and that the husband had paid
practically nothing. It was therefore
held that her claim was Just one and
would take priority. This affirmed the
finding of the court below.
HARTFORD FUND CASE.
The action of the lower court was
also affirmed in the case Of William 8.
Sherlock, secretary of the Hartford
Poor Fund trustees, against Louis N,
Ley, clerk of the city of Canton, and
others. 1t appears from the record in
the case that when an Investigation. of
the Hartford Poor fund was ordered by
the council, Sherlock turned over to the
city clerk the books, papers and other
property in his hands to be used by. the
examiners or experts. Later, when he
demanded their return. the clerk re-
fused to give them to Sherlock, on the
ground that he was no longer q member
of the board of trustees, but had been
removed from Office by a resolution of
council. 1t was claimed by Sherlock
that the council had no authority to re-
move him and his associates Sherlock
commenced an action to- replevin.
Judge Douglass handed down the
opinion of the circuit court, holding
that the council which created the
board of trustees had unquestioned
right to dissolve 1t for cause, and that
Sherlock could not recover the papers
for the reason that he was no longer
member of the board and had no
right to them. This decision upholds
the resolution of council and disposes
OF the old trustees. 80 -
]. ]. Clark represented the city and
Miller & Pomerene were council for
Sherlock.