Switzerland County Common Pleas Court – Mar 1868

Proceedings of the Switzerland County, Indiana Common Pleas Court appeared in:

Vevay Reveille – 12 Mar 1868 – Page 2, Column 2

Common Pleas Court

Is in session in this place, Judge Lamb presiding. 123 cases are on docket; the largest number ever docketed at one time before, and yet the District Attorney is hunting up, and almost hourly docketing others. As yet but little has been done beside progress in making up the issues.

The State vs. McMakin, and State vs. Cooper, for malicious trespass were dismissed.

State vs. Short, for grand larceny, tried, defendant acquitted.

Sage vs. Sage, divorce, tried, divorcement denied.

There are a few other cases on notes, mortgages, &c., wherein the defendants have made default, in which judgments have been ordered.—Owing to the great amount of business in Court the present term will, perhaps, hold for three weeks, the maximum length allowed by law.

Vevay Reveille – 19 Mar 1868 – Page 2, Column 1

Law Report.

The case of Whitehead, Eggleston & Co. vs. John S. Schofield & John J. Paul, on account and attachment which was in process of trial, was submitted to the Jury on Friday of last week, which rendered a verdict of $266.10 for the plaintiff, and “no cause for attachment” for the defendant, J. J. Paul. Defendant, Paul, moved a new trial, which motion was overruled to which defendant excepts and asks sixty days in which to prepare bill of exceptions, preparatory to taking the matter to the Supreme Court.

Edrington vs. Edrington for divorce, was submitted to the Court on Saturday, and the bill of divorcement refused, on the ground of collusion of parties.

On Monday morning the case of O. P. Cobb & Co., of Aurora, Ind., vs. William G. Krutz for money, was called and is at the present writing in process of trial. The difference between the parties amounts to several thousand dollars and is being closely contested, being a case of considerable interest, and will probably be submitted to the Jury sometime this (Thursday) afternoon.

The celebrated Will Case of Humphrey and Bodkin vs. Humphrey, was continued on Monday, on motion of the Defendant. In this case there is pending some two or three hundred thousand dollars, and from the array of counsel and witnesses on either side, one may safely judge that this will be a case of more than usual interest. It is an effort of two of Arthur Humphrey’s heirs at law to set aside his will. The estate of said Humphrey is variously estimated at from two hundred and fifty to five hundred thousand dollars.

It is already evident that the three weeks will not be sufficient to clear the dockets of the cases already at issue.

The Bar is quite full this term, both resident and foreign Attorneys abounding.

Vevay Reveille – 26 Mar 1868 – Page 3, Column 3

O. P. Cobb & Co. vs. William G. Krutz.—Was protacted longer than was anticipated, counsel consuming a day and a half in the argument, on account of which the case was not submitted to the Jury until 12 o’clock M. on Saturday. The Jury remained out all the afternoon Saturday, all night Saturday night, and until noon on Sunday, when they came down, reporting that they could not agree upon a verdict. It is understood that the Jury stood five for O. P. Cobb & Co., and seven for Wm. G. Krutz.

There is an effort being made to agree upon submitting the case to commissioners. It will be remembered that this trial was commenced on Wednesday of last week and that the entire week was spent on it. The issues are such in the case that it is not likely a jury could ever agree upon a verdict, and the submission of the case to commissioners is a thing to be desired.

The afternoon of Saturday seemed to be the day especially set out for hearing of divorce cases, and during the afternoon some five were submitted to His Honor without the intervention of a jury; in four of which the “bills” of divorcement prayed for were granted, to wit:

  • McCarty vs. McCarty
  • Hays vs. Hays
  • Bennet vs. Bennet
  • Norton vs. Norton.

The case of Slater vs. Slater was submitted but the proof failing to make out a case the matter was continued until Monday, when the plaintiff came in and dismissed her suit. A very striking feature on the docket for this term of the court, it is the fact that twelve cases were docketed for trial wherein bills of divorcement were prayed for, and in each of these the wife is the complaining party. By floating straws we detect the direction of the tide.

Querie: What would be the probably result as to the divorcement law if the ballot were to be given into hands of the ladies?

The greater part of the day on Monday was taken up by counsel in making up issues. Whitehead, Eggleston et. al. vs. James W. Keith and Henry C. Picket was tried on Tuesday, and a verdict for $141.00 was given for the plaintiffs.

Lester vs. Lester—Divorce and Alimony. The parties having agreed upon the amount of alimony, ($1,000.00,) the Court heard the evidence and granted the applicant her divorce.

Vevay Reveille – 2 Apr 1868 – Page 2, Column 2

Law Report.

Baxter vs. Tague, on account, was tried and the Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff for $67.00.

The Enterprise Insurance Co., of Cincinnati, vs. Julius Blach, W. B. Owens and Jas. H. Davis. The Defendants Owens and Davis were defaulted, and Blach contested the matter, setting up the plea that this Company being a foreign one, has not complied with the requirements of the Statute. The case was submitted on the pleadings, and judgment given for the plaintiff, when defendant Blach moved for a new trial, which motion being overruled, an appeal to the Supreme Court was prayed for and granted.

Indiana Fire Insurance Co., vs. William J. Gibbs, on note for $52, given for insurance policy, was contested and want of consideration pleaded. The case was submitted to jury, and a verdict for $20 was given for the plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial; motion overruled, and an appeal to the Supreme Court prayed for.

Bledsoe vs. Perry, to enforce vender’s lien and foreclose a mortgage, was submitted on the pleadings, and judgment given for plaintiff. Defendant moved a new trial, motion overruled, and an appeal to the Supreme Court taken.

Court adjourned on Friday evening.