The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1903-01-02
MAKING READY
FOR NEW TERN
Judges Of Common Pleas Are Shap-
ing Things for January Ses-
". sion Of Court.
new ASSIGNMENT OF Cases.

-O
While the present term of court has
not yet been adjourned. preparations
are making for the January term.
There will be a session of court
Wednesday, when the motion for a
new trial In the case of Fleisher
against Bloomberg will be heard. This
Is the case where 1t Is alleged cer-
tain jurors did lot OF indiscreet
talking during the hearing of the case
and after the verdict had been rem
dered. The jurors deny emphatically
that they made the speeches attribut-
ed to them, and the hearing is expect
ed to show some contradictions in
testimony and raise the question OF
veracity between the witnesses.
The bar dockets for the January
term have not as yet been printed,
and they cannot be until the court
adjourns sine die. The greater parr
of the copy is in the hands of the
printer and they will be ready for dis
tribution just as soon as the term
ends.
A NEW ASSIGNMENT.
The courts have ordered an assign
nent for the first week Of the January
terni. which begins January s. The
following are the cases set for hear
ing. all being equity cases:
ROOM NO JUDGE HARTER.
MONDAY, JANUARY s.
Motions:
Ferguson VS. Pool ct al
Friedman VS.. Meredith ct al.
Dodd VS., w. !. Bridge Co.
After VS.. Eicher.
TUESDAY. JANUARY 6.
Maser VS.. l.. Z. A. & w. Ry.
Fields VS.. Fields.
Canton Dental & Surgical Chair Co.
VS.. Gould ct al.
Foreman VS., Foreman.
Royer ct al VS.. Board of Education.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY Z.
Weller VS.. Umbenhour
Shuman VS.. Zimmerman.
Kaser vs. Brown.
Robins VS.. Robins.
Rex VS.. Becher ct al.
THURSDAY. JANUARY 8.
King vs. Farley ct al.
2 Rufenacht VS.. Rufenacht.
'Newhouse VS.. Reed ct al.
Bash VS.. Bash y. ff
"a So FRIDAY. JANUARY o.
Reemsynder VS.. Reemsynder.
Reemsynder vs.. Reemsynder.
Carman VS.. Carman.
Heffner VS.. Killing ct al
Hershell VS.. Hershell.
ROOM 2-JUDGE AMBLER
MONDAY, JANUARY s.
Hearing motions, impaneling grand
Jury.
Graham VS.. Vet. Memorial Assn.
Barry VS.. Scott ct al.
Ohio VS.. Sandyville Ry. Co.
Mcdowell, trustee. VS.. Rommel ct
al
Bowers VS.. Bowers.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 6.
Muller VS.. C. A. Ry. Co.. ct nj.
Rinzenbrink vs.. Rinzenbrink.
Coates VS.. White ct al.
Melbourne VS.. Melbourne.
Lothamer VS.. Shanabruck ct al.
WEDNESDAY. JANUARY Z.
Richter VS.. Soaker ct al.
Wertenberger VS.. Wertenberger.
Hay ct al vs. City Of Canton ct al.
ShankletOn VS.. Shankleton.
Miller VS.. Canton Buggy Co.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8.
Ellison VS.. City of Canton.
Cable vs.. Building & Lumber Co.
Haybaker VS.. Haybaker.
Magnolia Mercantile Co. vs.. Elson.
FRIDAY. JANUARY 9.
Gauchat VS.. Gauchat.
Nighman VS.. Leggett.
Alliance VS.. Urig.
Huber VS.. Huber.
Mason v5. Mason.
Two divorce petitions were filed
In common pleas court Tuesday by
Attorney w. J. Piero. In the one
Elizabeth Marks is the plaintiff and
Richard Marks is the defendant. The
charges against him are that he has
been willfully absent for more than
three years and that for some time
past he has been living with an
other woman In the city OF Canton.
Tho plaintiff and defendant were
married at Bolivar in 1892 and have
a boy IA years of age. The wife owns
two lots in Canton. She asks divorce.
the custody of the son and that the
husband be devised of his dover