Switzerland County, Indiana Circuit Court proceedings for May 1854 appeared in:
The Weekly Reveille – May 11, 1854 – Page 2, Column 4
Circuit Court—May Term, 1854.
FIRST DAY.
The Court was principally taken up with charging the Grand Jury. The prosecuting attorney being absent—John Dumont was appointed, and some criminal cases were continued for Process and the case of Benj. F. Graham, against Edward H. Rodgers, for malicious prosecution and slander, was commenced.
SECOND DAY.
The court was occupied most of the day with the case of Graham against Rodgers which was concluded and after very able argument from Major and Dumont for Plaintiff, and Kelso and Carter for Defendant the Jury retired and after being absent a portion of the night returned a verdict for Defendant.
The case of Davenport Oaks, vs. M. & A. Dunning, was taken up by the Court, and the Plaintiff dismissed the suit as to A. Dunning, and proceeded against M. Dunning alone; the case not being concluded the Jury dispersed under the usual charge of the Court.
The suit of Ruth Godard, vs. Cornelius Humphrey for Breach of Marriage promise was dismissed for some informality, and it is rumored that it will be renewed again at the next term of the Court.
THIRD DAY.
The Grand Jury were discharged and we understand that they found no bills of Indictment which speaks well for the morals of our county, and shows the benefit of our present restriction of the liquor traffic.
The case of Oaks vs. Dunning was resumed, and after some conflicting evidence, the case was submitted to the Jury, and after returning to their room for consultation, returned a verdict for Plaintiff for $65. Kelso for Plaintiff; Major and Jelly for Defendants.
The report of the Commissioners in the case Vandoring, vs. Vandoring, for partition of real estate, was confirmed. Gazley for Plaintiff; Lamb for Defendant.
The case of Stepenson vs. Stephenson and McCarthy’s heirs, was submitted to the Court, after being partly compromised by the parties, and judgment was rendered for Plaintiffs. Sullivan for Plaintiffs; Carter, Kelso and Gazley for Defendents.
Romirel vs. Romirel, complaint for money, was next taken up by the Court and the cause was submitted to the Jury after hearing evidence and very able arguments of counsel. Carter, for Plaintiff, Dumont and Lamb for Defendant.
FOURTH DAY.
To day the Jury in the case of Romirel vs. Romirel, after being out all night and half of the day, returned a verdict, for Plaintiff for $21 80 cts.
U. P. Schenck vs. Aurilla Snider et. al to foreclose mortgage. Decree rendered for $480. Carter for Plaintiff; Lamb for Defendant.
Huldah Everdon vs. Conley Everdon, for divorce. The court decreed a divorce in favor of Complainant, for abandonment; a very clear clase. Lamb for complainant.
Elizabeth Horton, vs. Josiah Horton, bill for divorce for mal treatment and abandonment; which occupied the Court most of the day examining witnesses. Court decreed a divorce, alimony to be arranged by counsel. Lamb, Dumont and Marshall for Complainant; Kelso and Harris for Defendant.
Amelia Merrill vs. Albert Merrill bill for divorce, cause (Whisky) drunkenness; divorce granted. Kelso and McCallum for Complainant; Dumont for the State.