Morgan County Democrat. (McConnelsville, Ohio) 1886-1943, 1934-02-08
Court House News
COMMON PL EAS COURT
Seeks DAMAGES

March 20, 1888, at Chesterhill, de-
fendant unlawfully assaulted and
beat plaintiff by striking him on the
head, face and chest, with his fist
caus ng him to fall backwards from
sidewalk, severely injuring plain
tiff's right shoulder. Also striking
pla ntiff in the lower abdominal
region, producing light inguinal
hernia, from which injuries he still
suffers, to damage in the sum OF
$4,000; that because Of said as
sault and battery plaintiff was not
able to attend to his ordinary bust
ness, in the sum of $69.50, and was
also compelled to spend E27.25 for
medical care and truss.
Found Guilty OF Larceny
The case of State of Ohio VS.
Ernest Rush, for grand larceny
stealing two dogs from C. w. Cord
ray, was heard last Thursday De-
fendant was found guilty of lar
ceny, the value of property being
fixed at $50
Arthur j. Parsons Files Answer
In the divorce action of Mary L.
Parsons VS.. Arthur ]. Parsons de-
fendant files answer, in which he
makes complete denial of
charges made in plaintiffs petition.
He denies that he has been guilty
of extreme cruelty; denies that he
ever knocked her down, or that he
in any manner assaulted her De-
fendant admits that at times there
were slight differences between him
and his wife, and ayers that the
whole and sole differences were on
account of the presence, in their
home, of plaintiffs mother. De-
fendant denies that in 1880 he re-
quested plaintiffs mother to move
back into their home for the pur-
pose of assisting in the expense of
the home. He admits that for a time
plaintiffs mother may have con-
tributed to the household expenses
but he AYERS that it was not neces-
sary for plaintiff because of his
idleness to procure employment in
November, 1881. He further al
leges that in 1892 it became neces-
sary for plaintiff to go to the hos
pital, and he states that he staid for
a period of three weeks with his
wife at the hospital, every day and
'ght, except about three days when
her mother staid He alleges that
soon after his wife's return from the
hospital, her mother took down
with pneumonia, and that neither
plaintiff nor her moh sawret zgk nj
plaintiff nor her mother was able to
work outside Of their household
that winter; that he paid q hospital
bill of $50, and that it was against
his wish that plaintiff went to work
about March, 1888, in Cochran's
cigar factory and it was not neces-
sary for her to do said work in or
der to earn money with which to
pay household expenses; that he
does not know for what purpose
the money is expended, except to
pay her mother for staying in their
home and keeping their two chill
dren at night so that plaintiff could
be out having a good time. De-
fendant also AYERS that when he
staid with the children plaintiff
would be away of nights playing
cards with certain neighbor wom-
an and three men, often until II
and II o'clock He does not deny
that he left home, and admits that
he does not intend to return to his
home so long as PLAINTIFFS mother
to occupy it or to be a
part of the household and attempts
to run it, including defendant; but
on the contrary he states he is will
ing and anxious to live with plain
tiff and his children, ana intends to
and will SO far as he is able assist
in the maintenance of the children.
Defendant asks that petition be
dismissed.
Asks Cancellation On Execution
..
VIM. c. Dutton, defendant moves
the court to set aside the writ of
execution issued against defendant,
for seven reasons. Defendant asks
that said execution be cancelled,
set aside and held for naught, and
that the sheriff of Morgan county
holding said execution be immedi-
ately ordered to return said writ
further proceedings there
under. Motion states that execution
is predicated upon weekly allow
ance made by court for support of
an alleged minor child of defend
ant; no judgment was ever taken or
procured by plaintiff for the amount
due said allowance; said allow
ance is not judgment. amount
Of execution is largely in excess of
due; defendant will have
no opportunity to contest amount
due if execution is not cancelled by
court; the issuing of an execution
first having procured
Judgment or finding of court of
amount due, is unlawful: action.
1eprives defendant of his right to
be heard thereon, guaranteeing to
and laws of Ohio.
Verdict For $8SO.58
The jury in the foreclosure case
Of DR.. C. e. Northrup vs.. Errville
Shriver ct al, returned verdict
Tuesday night. in favor OF the plain
>>>>>>>~~~~~~>>~>>A>>>>>A>