Hide Article Text (OCR)
thelocOV(amCltaPlP.V.ceimeInidaruipe:lh.re«arposa-8tsisciiE.E.mInPickaway Common 1‘lta.s Court —AprilTerm.The jury in the case of Courtright, Assignee vs Germauia Insurance Co., returned a verdict of $750 for plaintiffs Counsel for defeudant filed a motion for new trial.Eliza Williams vs. Emanuel Williams. Decree for divorce, for the reason that the defeudant is now serving a five years term inthe Ohio Penitentiary, sent trora Ross county, in 1882, tor an assault with intent to commit rape. Goldfrednck for petitioner.Kate Schuller vs. Jacob D. Scholler. Decree for divorce, because of wilful absence of defendant or more than three years. Piain-titf giveu custody of their two children, restored to her maiden name, Kate Russ, and allowed $1,000 alimony.Druzilla C. Smith vs. Willard H. Smith., Decree for divorce, because of wilful absence I l,a of defendant for more than three years past. Courtright for petitioner. fttSylvia PoDtious vs. David Pontious. De- ! wa cree for divorce, because of wilful absenceof delendant for more than three years, and iplaintiff to have the custody of children.- !Florence May Pancake vs. Joseph Chester 1 Pancake Decree for divorce, the defendanthaving beeu adjudged guilty of adultery,Plaintiff to have custody of child, and the defendant to pay her $500 alimony.Hart, Hitchcock Co. vs. Job R. Renick, et al. Verdict for plaintiffs, for $384. j ^The case of Edward B. Clark, Sen., vs.! ^ Simon Bayer and Elizabeth Bayer, his wife, j pending in the Courts since 1873, was taken ! up for trial, last Friday afternoon. The pe- j titiou alleges that on April 26, 1873, the Ta plaintiff had the possession and sole custody j of Edward J. and Ada H. Clark, children of* his son, Edward B. Clark, Jr., then both \ QU under five years of age, whose parents were qj-living apar: and had renounced and abau- i doued all right to their custody and possession in favor of the plaintiff; that the defendants, well knowing the premises, wrongfully. without cousent or authority, and forcibly, took possession of said children, and carried them out of the county, and concealed one of them at Columbus and the other at Cleveland, and «ue plaintiff was put las to great loss and expt use in searching for and recovering the children, and asks dam-' fo ages iu the sum ot five thousand dollars The w: defendants claim that the mother of said ! he children, having obtained possession of them, j te took thefn in public conveyances to Colum- a bus, and there placed the little girl in St.Francis Hospital, and-committed the little : Pl•boy to the care of Mrs. Bayer and her son j 10 John, who were going from Circleville to New York, by way of Cleveland, and that v* they took charge of him on the way from jColumbus to Cleveland, where be was placed jin the Orphan’s Asylum, under the care of J the Sisters of Charity, in pursuance of an arraugemtat made by the mother; and deny that there was any Secresy or concealment j about it. on the part of Mrs. Bayer or her son. At the February term, 1879, of the Court of Common Pleas of Pickaway Coun- | ^ ty, the case came on trial before Judge i Courtright and a jury. After the testimony j ^ for plaintiff had been concluded, the counsel for delendauts, without offering any testimony, made a motion to arrest all of the testimony from the jury, as irrelevant and• 1__, Iinsufficient, and to discharge‘the jury from : the further consideration of 9aid case. The • arguments of counsel having been heard,the Court granted the motion, dischargedthe jury, and rendered judgment tor defend- j ants. The plaintiff carried the ca9e to the District Court, where the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was reversed, and the cause remanded to the Court of Common Plea9. The counsel for defendants then car- ; ^ ried the case to the Supreme Court, on er- * ror, where, about a year ago, the judgment ' ^of the District Court was affirmed. Thetestimony on part of plaintiff' occupied Saturday and Monday last, the plaintiff being ; 0 under examination a great part of the time.At. the conclusion ot testimony for plaintiff, 'Judge Olds, ot defendants’ counsel, made a motion to take the cate trom tin jury, which n was overruled by Judge Lincoln, and on j ^ Tuesday morning the defense proceeded with their evidence. The case was given to the jury, Wednesday afternoon, and a verdict returned for plaintiff..assessing his damages at $150. Counsel for defendants gave notice of a motion for new trial.w ar! Itsna iT1Plt;seto eai-Gi tc MC01$clleooFtltlt;
Newspaper Details
Circleville Democrat and Watchman
Circleville, Ohio, US
Fri, May 16, 1884
Page 3
Full Page
Clipped by
Deborah W.
USA 09 Sep 2020
Other Publications Near Circleville, Ohio
Circleville Democrat and Watchman
Circleville Daily Union Herald
Circleville Herald
