<<<    21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40    >>>

Page 21

October 31, 1856

At a court for Tazewell County continued and held at the courthouse on Friday 31 October 1856. Present Thomas PEERY, Esq., presiding, Bird LOCKHART and Rufus K. HARRISSON, justices.

A.H. CANADY VS. John W. GILLESPIE assignee of Bagil SCOTT - On an appeal from the judgment of a justice re-entered on 13 October 1856 in favor of the appeal against the appellant for $15.00 with interest from 1 May 1850 til paid and 80 cents costs. On the trial of this cause the appellant asked the court to reverse the judgment and dismiss the warrant on the ground that neither the justice below the court here has jurisdiction; because that sometime before the issuing out of this warrant in this case the appeallee had issued out a ? juror ? warrant on the note issued for the present warrant, that said prior warrant had been executed on appellant and Ransom CANADY whose name are signed to said note and returned before William R. BANE a justice of the peace of Tazewell who tried the said warrant and gave judgment on said note against Ransom CANADY but gave no judgment on said note against the appellant the execution issue against said Ransom CANADY on said judgment and was placed in the handles of the constable who endorsed thereon "No Property Found" returned the said judgment and execution to the clerks office or ? the same to one Rees Green but that the same cannot now be found and is supposed to be lost and that some time after this to wit on 11 October 1856. The said constable as agent for the appellee obtained another and the present warrant on the same note above mentioned which was executed on said Ransom CANADY and the appellant and the judgment ordered which was appealed from it was ? committed by the appealer GILLESPIE that he never had but one note on Ransom CANADY and the appellant assigned him by Bagil SCOTT and these are all the facts proven on the motion of appellant to recover the judgment appealed from and dismissed the warrant for want of jurisdiction. And the court preceding to give judgment in the case doth consider that there is no error in the judgment of the justice first aforesaid and doth hereby order and acknowledge that the same be approved and that the appeallee recover against the appellant $15.00 with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum from 1 May 1850 til the 13th October 1856 and 80 cents for his costs before the justice aforesaid and damages at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the whole amount of said debt interest and cost from the said 13 October 1856 til paid and it is further considered by the court that the appealee recover against the appellant his costs by him in his defense here expended.

Bartley BELCHER for the benefit of William BAILEY (Plaintiff) VS. Jefferson J. MYERS (Defendant) Notice in Debt - It appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant has had 60 days notice of the motion and that said notice has been returned to and filed in the clerks office. Forty days the said defendant was solemnly called but came not therefore on the motion of the plaintiff it is considered by the court that he recover against the said defendant $60.00 with legal interest thereon from the 1 September 1855 (being the amount of a note executed to Plaintiff by defendant and A.J. Owens dated 1 September 1834) til paid and the costs of this motion.

Thomas W. WITTEN VS. William S. SEABOLT (Defendant) Debt - This day came again the parties by their attorney's and there upon came a jury to wit: Jacob FRANCIS, Henry MILAN, James M. GRAHAM, Virlen HOLBROOK, David G. YOST, Wilbur SLADE, Andrew P. BREWSTER, Thompson DAUGHERTY, Francis MCGUIRE, Samuel W. YOUNG, John NECESSARY, William O. YOST, who being elected, tried and sworn the truth to speak upon the case joined upon the oaths returned the following verdict: "We the jury find for the plaintiff the sum of $500 with interest thereon from the 1 January 1855" it is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiff recover against the defendant $500.00 with interest thereon from the 1 January 1855 til paid and the costs by him in this suit.

<<<    21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40     >>>

This site is totally free, however if you want to donate to my cause, any help you can give will be greatly appreciated!