|
St. Clair County Circuit Court
Microfilm Transcripts
August Term 1841
Page 7:
August Term 1841
At a Circuit Court Commenced and held at the Dwelling house of
William Gash Mg’r for the County of St. Clair on Tuesday the 2nd day
of August in the year of our Lord 1841 –
Present: Foster P. Wright, Circuit Judge
Chas. P. Bullock, Clerk
John Smarr, Sheriff
The Sheriff of St. Clair County returned here into Court the Venire
facias for a Grand Jury, from which was sworn and empanelled the
following named persons as a Grand Jury for the State of Missouri
for the body of the County of St. Clair To Wit: William H. McCullock
foreman, Daniel W. Harris, Robert Burch, Jacob Counce, Simeon
Poston, James C. Burger, Andrew T. Snodgrass, Joshua Gales, William
Ainsworth, Abraham Dains, James W. Garnett, Tavenor Beale, Lindsey
Applegate, James Norris and Dan’l Waldo who having received their
charge retired to consider of their presentments – Daniel Waldo and
of the Grand Jurors is by order of the Court discharged and Jesse
Applegate sworn as a Grand Juror in his stead.
The Grand Jury returns here unto Court and having no business before
them are by the Court discharged.
On motion of James Winston, Felix Houstin is permitted to produce as
attorney and Counselor at Law in this Court.
Pleasant M. Cox administrator of the Estate of Richard P.
Crutchfield deceased – Plff
vs
Alexander Moore – Deft
Debt & Attachment on Transcript from Justices Court
Now at this Day comes the plaintiff by his attorney and upon his
motion this Cause is Ordered to be disrupted at the Defend’t. Costs.
Pleasant M. Cox & Zachariah Lilley – Plffs
vs
Alexander Moore – Deft
Debt & Attachment on Transcript from Justices Court
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attornies and in motion
of the plaintiff by his attorney this Cause is by assessment Ordered
to be dismissed at Defendant’s Costs.
Page 8:
August Term 1841
Phillips Crow & Roderick D. McCullock – plffs
vs
Alexander Moore – Deft
Debt of attachment on Transcript from Justices Court
Now at this Day Comes the parties by their attornies and On Motion
of the Plaintiff by his attorney and upon the agreement of parties
this Cause is ordered to be Dismissed at the Defendant’s Costs.
Samuel Rowark – Plff
vs
Thomas Hester – Deft
Appeal
Now at this day Comes the parties here unto Court and the Defendant
by his counsel files here in this motion to rule the plaintiff to
security for Costs whereupon the plaintiff files his motion to
dismiss the appeal.
Ordered that all declarations, pleadings, and motions filed shall
have a margin at the top of an inch to a half and on the left edge
of each page and not where any papers contains more than a half page
it shall be in roll form and no pleading declaration or motion shall
be filed of a less size than a half sheet.
David Kelso – plff
vs
Charles Beale – Deft
Appeal
Now at this Day Comes the defendant by his attorney and upon his
motion this Cause is Ordered to be dismissed at the Defendant’s
Costs.
On Motion of John Smarr, Sheriff of St. Clair County, Abner C. Lyon
is appointed Deputy Sheriff during this present term of this Court
who thereupon took the Oath prescribed by law.
State of Missouri – plff
vs
Charles Beale & William Beale – Defts
Indc’t. Grand Larceny
Now at this day comes William Beale in his own proper person in
discharge of his recognizance as well as the Circuit attorney who
prosecutes for the State of Missouri and the Said Defendant by his
attorney files herein his demurrer to the Indictment aforesaid –
Whereupon all and singular the
Page 9:
August Term 1841
Premises being said, and by the Court here fully understood for That
it appears to the Court here, that no said indictment and the
matters therein Contained are not sufficient in law to Compel the
said Defendant William Beale to answer thereto, Therefore it is
Considered by the Court here that the said Defendant William Beale
be dismissed and discharged of the said Indictment and that he go
thereof without day.
State of Missouri – plff
vs
Charles Beale & William Beale – Defts
Indc’t. Grand Larceny
Now on this day Comes the Circuit attorney who prosecutes for the
state of Missouri as well as the Said Defendant William Beale in his
own proper person and the said Defendant by his attorney files
herein his demurrer to the Indictment aforesaid whereupon all and
singular the premises being seen and by the Court here fully
understood is by the Court Overruled.
Robert N. Burch – Plff
vs
Daniel Brant & Daniel Waldo, Defts
Petition of Debt
Now at this Day Comes the parties by their attornies and motion of
the plaintiff by his attorney and by leave of the Court the Sheriff
is permitted to Sign the return made by him upon the Summons in this
Cause filed.
State of Missouri – Plff
vs
Charles Beale & William Beale, Defts
Indc’t Grand Larceny
Now at this day Comes the Circuit attorney in behalf of the State of
Missouri as well as the said Defendant William Beale in his own
proper person who having had hearing of the State Indictment and
being demanded concerning the premises in the said Indictment above
specified and Charged upon him how he will acquit himself thereof
for his plea saith he is not guilty thereof and for his trial puts
himself upon the Country – and the said Circuit attorney who
prosecutes for the State doth the like and thereupon Causes a Jury
To wit: Jonas Heyton, Edward H. Delosier, John Tally, James D. Grey,
Hyram Mead, Joshua Moore, Reuben Robinson, Benjamin H. Moore,
Anthony N. Hester, Uriah L. Sutherland, Edward Delosier and
Page 10:
August Term 1841
Thomas Hester who were well and truly elected tried and sworn well
and truly to try the issue in this Cause Joined after hearing the
Evidence returned here into Court the following Verdict To Wit: “We
the Jury find the Defendant not guilty in manner and form as charged
in the indictment.” Therefore it is Considered by the Court here,
that the said Defendant William Beale of the premises, aforesaid, in
the indictment aforesaid, above specified, be discharged, and that
he go thereof without Day.
Upon Motion of Nathaniel Bell the relator in an information in the
nature of a Quo Warranto against Joseph Montgomery, Calvin Waldo and
Thomas F. Wright, Commissioners for the Location of the County seat
for St. Clair County for leave to file the same which motion is of
the Court awarded.
Robert N. Burch – Plff
vs
Daniel Brant & Daniel Waldo – Defts
Petition in Debt
Now at this Day Comes the parties by their attornies and the
Defendant Daniel Brant by his attorney and by leave of the Court
files his Demerer to the plaintiffs Declaration whereupon on Motion
of the plaintiff by his attorney leave is given said plaintiff to
await his petition.
Daniel Rowark – Appelln & plff
vs
Thomas Hester – Appellant & Deft
Appeal
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attornies and the
defendant by his attorney files herein his motion for leave to file
his affidavit here being in different affidavit filed in the appeal
and to him leave is granted. Whereupon the Defendant by his Counsel
files herein his motion to rule the Plaintiff to security for Costs
which motion being seen, heard and fully understood by the Court is
by the Court Overruled. Whereupon both parties being ready for trial
cause a Jury To wit: Nathaniel Bell, William C. Burks, Robert Beale,
William Beale, Jesse Applegate, Robert N. Burch, Richard Smith,
Thomas F. Wright and Calvin Waldo, twelve good and lawful men who
were duly Elected tried and sworn well and truly to try the matter
of Controversy in this Cause
Page 11:
August Term 1841
Served, and after hearing the Evidence and arguments of Counsel
returned unto Court the following verdict To wit: “We the Jury find
for the Defendant” – Therefore it is Considered by the Court here
that the said Defendant recover of the said plaintiff his Costs and
Charges by him in his defense in this behalf laid out and Expended –
and that he have thereof his writ of Execution.
Abraham C. Novell – plaintiff
vs
James D. Gray – Defendant
Appeal
Now at this Day Comes the parties by their attornies and the
Defendant by his Counsel files herein his motion for a Continuance
of this Cause, which motion being seen heard and fully understood by
the Court is by the Court Sustained – and this Cause is Ordered to
be Continued untill the next Term of this Court at the Defendants
Costs.
James V. Garnett – Plaintiff
vs
John G. McMurry – Defendant
Trespass Assault & Battery
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attornies and upon their
agreement this Cause is ordered to be dismissed Each party paying
one half of the Costs in this behalf laid out and Expended and that
they have respectively thereof their writs of Execution.
James V. Garnett – Plaintiff
vs
John G. McMurry – Defendant
Trespass Assault & Battery
Now at this day comes the parties by their attornies and upon the
agreement of Said parties this Cause is Ordered to be dismissed.
Each party paying one half of the Costs in this behalf laid out and
Expended and that they have respectively thereof their writs of
Execution ordered by the Court here that the pleadings in all Cases
of petition and Summons be filed on or before the morning session of
Tomorrow and the pleas in all other Cases to be filed before the
rising of the Court on the same day.
Ordered that Court adjourn untill Tomorrow morning – nine of the
Clock.
F.P. Wright, Circuit Judge
Page 12:
August Term 1841
Wednesday Morning 9 of the Clock. Court meet pursuant to adjournment
– Present as on Yesterday.
John Sapington – Plff
vs
Reuben L. Nance – Deft
Petition to Summons
Now at this Day Comes the Parties by their attornies and the
Defendant by leave of the Court filed herein his Demurer to the
plaintiffs petition and by leave of the Court withdraws his said
demurer.
James Kelso – Plff
vs
Charles Beale – Deft
Trespass on the Case
Now at this day comes the parties by their attornies and the
Defendant by leave of the Court files herein his plea of not guilty
to which the plaintiff by his Counsel Joins issue and this Cause is
Ordered to be Continued untill the next term of this Court.
William Short – Plff
vs
Pleasant M. Cox – Deft
Trespass
Now at this day comes the parties by their attornies and the
defendant by his attorney files herein his plea of not Guilty and
Justification to which the plaintiff by his attorney Joins issue.
William Short – Plff
vs
Henry W. Crow – Deft
Trespass
Now at this day Comes the parties here into Court and by leave of
the Court the Defendant by his attorney files herein his pleas of
not Guilty and Justification to which the plaintiff Joins issue.
William Short – plff
vs
Daniel Short – Deft
Trespass
Now at this day Comes the parties here into Court by their Attornies
and the Defendant by leave of the Court files herein his pleas of
not Guilty and of Justification to which the plaintiff by his
attorney Joins upon.
Page 13:
August Term 1841
Charles Beale – plff
vs
David Kelso – Deft
Assumpsit
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attornies and the
Defendant by his attorney files herein his plea of non assumpsit to
which the plaintiff joins issue and this cause is ordered to be
Continued untill the next term of this Court.
Charles Beale – plff
vs
David Kelso – Deft
Assumpsit – 1st suit
Now at this day Comes the Defendant by his attorney and upon his
motion this Cause is ordered to be dismissed at said plaintiff
Costs.
John J. Johnson – plff
vs
Alexander Moore – Deft
Trespass
Now at this Day Comes the plaintiff by his attorney and upon his
motion this cause is ordered to be dismissed at said plaintiffs
costs.
James V. Garnett – plff
Vs
John G. McMurry – Deft
Appeal
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attornies and upon their
motion is Ordered that this Cause be dismissed Each party paying on
behalf of the Costs in this Behalf Expended – and that they have
thereof respectively their writs of Execution.
Samuel Anderson
vs
Nicholas Ganter
Trover
Now at this day comes the plaintiff by his attorney And upon his
motion this Cause is ordered to be dismissed at the said plaintiffs
Costs.
Isaac Teale – plff
vs
Nicholas Bunter – Deft
Trover
Now at this Day Comes the said plaintiff by his attorney And upon
his motion this Cause is ordered to be dismissed at the said
plaintiffs Costs.
Page 14:
August Term 1841
William Short – plff
vs
Henry W. Crow – Deft
Trespass
Now at this day again Comes the parties by their attornies and the
Defendant by his attorney & files herein his motion to rule the
plaintiff to security for costs which motion being seen and fully
heard by the Court is by the Court sustained whereupon it is Ordered
by the Court here that the said plaintiff give here with good and
sufficient security Conditioned according to law to be filed in said
Cause with the Clerk of this Court at least thirty days before the
Commencement of the next term of This Court and in default thereof
this Cause is ordered to be dismissed, and on motion of the
Defendant by his Counsel and by Consent of the parties the said
Defendant has leave to amend his pleas in vacation or plead second
plea under general issue at any time before the Commencement of the
next term of this Court untill which time this Cause is ordered to
be Continued.
William Short – plff
vs
Pleasant M. Cox – Deft
Trespass
Now at this Day Comes the parties again by their attornies And The
Defendant by his attorney files herein the motion to rule the
plaintiff to Security for costs which motion being seen and fully
heard and understood by the Court is by the Court Sustained –
Whereupon it is Ordered by the said Court here that the said
plaintiff give bond with good and sufficient security Conditioned
according to law to be filed with the Clerk of this Court in said
Cause at least thirty days before the Commence of the next term of
This Court and in default thereof this Cause is ordered to be
dismissed – And on motion of the defendant by his Counsel and by
Consent of the parties the said defendant has leave to amend his
pleas in vacation or plead the Second plea under the General issue
And this Cause is Ordered to be Continued untill the next term of
this Court.
William Short – plff
vs
Daniel Short – Deft
Trespass
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attornies And the
Defendant by his attorney files herein his motion to rule the
plaintiff to security for Costs which said motion being seen and
fully heard and
Page 15:
August Term 1841
Understood by the Court is sustained – Whereupon it is Ordered by
the Court here that the Said plaintiff give bond with good and
sufficient security Conditioned according to law to be filed with
the Clerk of this Cause in his cause at least thirty days before the
Commencement of the next term of this Court, and in default thereof
thus Cause is Ordered to be disrupted and on motion of the defendant
by his attorney and by Consent of the parties the defendant has
leave to amend his pleadings in vacation or plead his second plea
under the general issue at any time before the Commencement of the
next term of this Court untill which time this Cause is ordered to
be Continued.
Lavina Calhoun – Adm’r to plff
vs
John Graham, Thomas Pearce & Gabriel Healey – Defts
Petition & Summons
Now at this Day Comes the plaintiff here unto Court by their
attorney and it appearing to the Court from the return by the
Sheriff upon the summons in this Cause issued that the said
defendant Cannot be found and upon motion of the said plaintiff by
her attorney this Cause is Ordered to be dismissed and leave given
the said plaintiff to withdraw the instrument said on which is
accordingly withdrawn.
John Sapington
vs
Reuben L. Nance
Petition & Summons
Now at this Day Comes the parties and the defendant by his attorney
and by leave of the Court files herein his plea of failure of
Consideration And the plaintiff files herein his replication to Said
defendants plea and both parties bring ready for trial and neither
party requiring a Jury This Cause is Submitted to the Court
whereupon the Court after hearing the Evidence And argument of
Counsel doth find the issue for the plaintiff and do further find
for the Said plaintiff the Sum of Three Hundred Dollars for His Debt
and Ten dollars for his damages by way of Interest. Therefore it is
Ordered by the Court that the Said plaintiff recover of the Said
defendant Sum of Three Hundred Dollars for his debt And ten dollars
for his damages. So assess
Page 16:
August Term 1841
as aforesaid together with his Costs and Charges by him in this
behalf laid out And Expended And he have thereof his writ of
Execution.
Seth B. Howard – plff
vs
James Garner – Deft
Trespass
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attorneys and files and
the defendant by his attorney And by leave of the Court files herein
his plea of not guilty. And by Consent of parties leave is given the
Said defendant to file his Special plea in this Cause Thirty days
before the Next term of this Court And to which time this Cause is
Ordered to be Continued.
Philip Crow and Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield, infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield Deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a Deed in favor of Pleasant M. Cox Conveying
Lot NO. One in Block No. Seven also fractional Lots No. Five Six
Nine and Ten in Block No. Ten as part of the premises in said
petition Mentioned And by him Sold under Said decree to be his act
And deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court and acknowledges a Deed in favor of Samuel M. Moore Conveying
Lot No. Six in Block No. Thirty Five as part of the premises in Said
petition Mentioned And by him Sold under Said decree to be his act
And deed for the purposes herein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court and acknowledges
Page 17:
August Term 1841
a deed in favor of R.H. Gardner concerning Lots No. Seven And Eight
in Block No. Ten and part of the premises in Said petition Mentioned
And by Same said under Said decree to be his Act and deed for the
purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
And at this day comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And acknowledges a deed in favor of Philip Crow Conveying Lot
No. one in Block No. Three also a part of lot No. one in Block No.
four also lot No. Two in Block No. three also lot No. Eleven in
Block No. Five & also lot No. Twelve in Block No. Two & lot No.
Eight in block No. Six & lot No. Two in Block No. Seven & lot No.
Six in Block No. Thirteen & lot No. Nine in Block No. Fourteen &
lots No. Seven Eight and Nine in Block No. Sixteen & lots No. four
five and Six and One in Block No. Twenty & lots No. Three four and
five and six in Block No. Nineteen & lot No. five in Block No.
Thirty five & lot No. Eight in Block No. Five & lots No. One Three
and four in Block No. Thirty five & lot No. Three in Block No.
Thirty Five & lot No. Two in Block No. Twenty Two & lot No. Eleven
in Block No. fifteen & lots No. Three four five Six Seven Eight Ten
Eleven and Twelve in Block No. Three & lots No. four and Nine in
Block No. Six & lots No. Two Seven Eight Nine ten Eleven And Twelve
in Block No. Eleven & Lots No. Nine and Ten in Block No. five & lots
No. five eight and Nine in Block No. Thirteen & Lots No. one Two And
Three in Block No. fourteen & Lot No. Ten in Block No. Fifteen &
Lots No. One Two & tree four five and six in Block No. Sixteen Lots
No. One Two Seven Eight Nine ten Eleven and Twelve in Block No.
Nineteen & Lots No. Two Three Seven Eight Nine ten Eleven And Twelve
in Block No. Twenty & Lots No. four five Six Seven Eight Nine ten
Eleven and Twelve & in Block No. Twenty One Lots No. One Two Three
four five and six in Block No. Twenty Two & Lots No. Eleven and
Twelve in Block No. Twenty Three & Lots No. four Seven Eight ten
Eleven and Twelve in block No. Twenty four & Lots No. Three nine ten
Eleven And Twelve in Block No. Twenty four fractional Lots No. Tree
And four And lots five And Six in Block No. Twenty Seven Fractional
Lot No. Seven Eight And Nine in Block No. Twenty Eight & Lots No.
Seven Eight Nine ten Eleven and Twelve in Block No. Twenty nine –
Lots No. One Two Three four five Six Seven Eight Nine ten Eleven And
Twelve in Block No. Thirty & Lots No. One Two Three four five Six
Seven Eight Nine ten Eleven
Page 18:
August Term 1841
Twelve in Block No. Thirty One & Lots No. One Two Six Eleven and
Twelve in Block No. Thirty Two & Lots No. One Two Three Four five
Six Seven Eight Nine ten Eleven And Twelve in Block No. Thirty Three
& Lots No. One Two Seven Eight Nine ten eleven and Twelve in Block
No. Thirty Seven & Lots No. One Seven Eight Nine ten eleven And
Twelve in Block No. Thirty Five & Lots No. One Two Three Four Five
Six Seven Eight Nine ten eleven And Twelve in Block No. Thirty Nine
& Lots No. four five Six Seven Eight Nine And ten in Block No. Forty
& Lots No. One Two Three four Nine ten eleven And Twelve in Block
No. Thirty One & Lots No. One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
Nine ten eleven And Twelve in Block No. Forty Two & Lots No. One Two
Three four five Six Seven Eight in Block No. Forty Three Also
fractional lots in the last numbered Block No. Nine ten eleven And
Twelve fractional lots No. Two Three four five and Six in Block No.
Forty Four & Also all that fraction of said fractional quarter Not
laid out into to Town Lots Containing Twenty Two acres Two Roads And
Forty nine Poles be the South More or less.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now on this day comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in afsd
County And Administers A Deed in favor of Zachariah Lilley Conveying
Lots No. One as fractional in Block No. Eleven Lot No. Ten in Block
No. Seven, Lot No. Eleven in Block No. Seven as part of the premises
in Said petition Mentioned, And by him Sold land in Said Decree to
be his act And Deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
P. Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield dec’d
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a Deed in favor of George N. Burch Conveying
Lot No. Seven in Block No. Eight as part of the premises in Said
petition mentioned And by him Sold under Said Decree to be his Act
and Deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Page 19:
August Term 1841
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And acknowledges a Deed in favor of Reuben L. Nance Conveying
Lot No. Two in Block No. Five as a part of the premises Mentioned in
Said petition And by him Sold under Said Decree to be his Act and
deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And acknowledges a deed in favor of Benjamin A. Howard
Conveying Lot No. Seven in Block No. Forty one as part of the
premises Mentioned in Said petition and by him Sold Under Said
decree to be his act and deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a deed in favor of Moris D. Warren Conveying
Lots No. Twelve in Block No. Forty Lot No. Eleven in Block No. Forty
a part of the premises Mentioned in Said Petition and by him Sold
under Said Decree to be his act and deed for the purposes therein
Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And acknowledges a deed in favor of Joseph G.E. Burnham
Conveying Lots No. Three in Block No. Five a part of the premises
mentioned in Said Petition and by him Sold under Said Decree to be
his act And Deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Page 20:
August Term 1841
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court and acknowledges a Deed in favor of John H. Allison Conveying
Lots No. Eight in Block No. Seven lot No. Six in Block No. Eleven
lot No. five in Block No. Eleven Lot No. five in Block No. Twelve &
Lot No. Nine in Block No. Fifteen Lot No. Eight in Block No. Fifteen
Lot No. Seven in Block No. Fifteen as part of the premises Mentioned
in Said Petition And Sold by him under Said Decree to be Act and
deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a Deed in favor of E. & Hanah Cain Conveying
Lot No. Eight in Block No. Eight lot No. Six in Block No. Twelve as
part of the premises Mentioned in Said Petition And Sold by him
Under the Said Decree to be his act and deed for the Purposes
therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court and Acknowledges a Deed in favor of Joseph W. Cox Conveying
Lots No. Eight in Block No. Thirty Five, lot No. Nine in block No.
Thirty Five, Lot No. ten in block No. Thirty Five, lot No. Six in
Block No. Forty One, lot Five in block No. Forty One lot No. Eight
in Block No. Forty One as part of the premises mentioned in Said
Petition And Sold by him under Said decree to be his act And Deed
for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now Comes at this day John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair county in Open
Court And Acknowledges
Page 21:
August Term 1841
A deed in favor of Isaac Culbertson Conveying lot No. ten in Block
No. Thirteen as part of the premises mentioned in Said Petition And
by him Sold under Said decree to be his act and Deed for the
purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a deed in favor of Abner McTyre Conveying
Lots No. Six in Block No. Five as part of the premises in Said
Petition Mentioned Sold by him under Said decree to be his Act And
Decree for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a deed in favor of Hugh Barnett, Conveying
Lot No. One in Block No. Twenty Four Lot No. Five in Block No.
Twenty Five as part of the premises Mentioned in Said petition And
by him Sold under Said Decree to be his act and deed for the
purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a deed in favor of Rodrick D. McCulloch
Conveying Lots No. Seven in Block No. Twenty Five, Lot No. Eight in
Block No. Twenty Two, Lot No. Nine in Block No. Twenty Five as part
of the premises mentioned in said Petition and Sold by him under
Said decree to be his act And Deed for the purposes therein
Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now Comes At this Day John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a deed in favor of John L. Anderson Conveying
Lot No. Two in Block No.
Page 22:
August Term 1841
Twelve, as part of the premises mentioned in Said Petition And Sold
by him under Said decree to be his act and deed for the purposes
therein mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And acknowledges a deed in favor of Samuel P. Hodges conveying
Lot No. Four in Block No. Thirteen as part of the premises Mentioned
in Said Petition And Sold by him Under Said Decree to be his Act And
deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And Acknowledges a deed in favor of Robert P. Crocke Conveying
Lot No. ten in Block No. Fourteen as part of the premises mentioned
in Said Petition And Sold by him Under Said Decree to be his Act and
deed for the purposes therein mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair county in Open
Court And Acknowledges a Deed in favor of John A. McClain, Simeon C.
Brown and John E. Morgan Conveying Lot No. Seven in Block No.
Thirteen Lot No. Seven Block No. Thirty Five as part of the Premises
mentioned in Said Petition And Sold by him under Said Decree to be
his act and deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair County in Open
Court And
Page 23:
August Term 1841
Acknowledges a deed in favor of Lawrence Lewis Conveying Lot No.
Four in Block No. Eleven, Lot No. Three in Block No. Eleven as part
of the premises Mentioned in Said Petition And by him Sold to be his
Act and deed for the purposes therein Mentioned.
Philip Crow & Henry W. Crow
vs
Lelia V. Crutchfield infant heir of Richard P. Crutchfield deceased
Petition for Partition of Land
Now at this day Comes John Smarr Sheriff of St. Clair county in Open
Court And Acknowledges a Deed in favor of William H. Clarke and E.
Lany Conveying unto them Lots No. Two Five and Six in Block No.
Thirty Four as part of the premises mentioned in Said Petition and
by him Sold under Said Decree to be his act and Deed for the
purposes therein Mentioned.
State of Missouri – plff
vs
Charles Beale and William Beale – Defts
Indc’t Grand Larceny
Now at this Day Comes the circuit attorney who prosecutes for the
State of Missouri and says he will not further prosecute this
indictment but Suffers Judgment Nolle prosequi – Therefore it is
Considered by the Court here that the said indictment be dismissed
And that the said Defendant from their said recognizance be
discharged and that they go thereof without day.
Robert N. Burch – plff
vs
Daniel Brant and Daniel Waldo – Defts
Petition to Summons
Now at this Day Comes the parties by their attornies and on motion
of the plaintiff by his attorney this Cause is Ordered to be
discontinued as to the said Defendant Daniel Waldo And the Said
Defendant saying nothing further in For or to the means of the
plaintiffs cause of action – but makes default Therefore it is
Considered by the Court That the said plaintiff recover of the said
Defendant Daniel Brant The sum of Six hundred and forty Dollars and
Ninety Six Cents for his debt and the further sum of Thirty Five
Dollars and five cents for his damages by way of interest at the
rates of ten per cent
Page 24:
August Term 1841
per Annum together with his Costs and Charges by him in the behalf
laid out And Expended and that he have thereof his writ of
Execution.
James Norris – plaintiff
vs
Paris Sims – Defendant
Assumpsit
Now at this day Comes the Plaintiff by his attorney And it Appearing
to the Court that the said Defendant Cannot be found in St. Clair
County from the return of Sheriff upon the Summons in this Cause
paid – Therefore it is Ordered by the Court that the Said Paris Sims
that an action of debt has been Commenced against him by James
Norris for the sum of One Hundred and Sixty Six Dollars & fifty
Cents – That a writ of attachment has been put against his Estate –
And that unless he be and appear at the next term of this Court to
begin and held at the Town of Osceola in Said County on the first
Monday after the fourth Monday in November next, and plead to the
action aforesaid according to law within the three first days of the
said next Term Judgment will be entered against him and his estate
sold to satisfy the same, and it is further ordered That a copy of
this order to be published in some newspaper printed in the State
for four weeks successively the last instruments be at least three
weeks before the first Day of said next term – and this Cause is
Ordered to be Continued untill the next term of this Court.
James Quarles and James Thompson – plffs
vs
Larkin H. Blake & Philips Crow – Defts
Petition & Summons
Now at this day Comes the parties by their Attornies and the
plaintiff by his attorney dismisses his Suit as to the Said
Defendant Larkin H. Blake and the said defendant Philips crow being
Solemnly Called Comes not – Therefore it appearing to the Court from
the release upon the Summons in this Cause issued that the said
Defendant Philips Crow had been duly Summoned it is Considered by
said Court that the said plaintiff recover of the said Defendant
Philips Crow the sum of Three hundred and Thirty nine dollars and
thirteen Cents for his debt and the further sum of nine Dollars and
twenty eight Cents for his damages by way of interest
Page 25:
August Term 1841
together with his costs and Charges by him in this behalf laid out
and Expended and that he have thereof his writ of Execution.
Reuben U. Harry – plff
vs
Larkin H. Blake & Philips Crow – Defts
Petition & Summons
Now at this day Comes the parties by their attornies and the said
plaintiff by his attorney dismisses his suit as to the defendant
Larkin H. Blake and the said Defendant Philip Crow and by his
attorney Confesses Judgment in favor of the Said plaintiff for the
sum of One hundred and Eighty Seven Dollars and Ninety Seven Cents
for his debt which amount the said plaintiff by his attorney agrees
to accept – Therefore it is Considered by the Said Court that the
said plaintiff recover of the Said Defendant Philips Crow the sum of
One hundred and Eighty seven Dollars and ninety seven Cents for his
debt as Confessed as aforesaid together with his Costs and Charges
by him in this behalf laid out and Expended – and that he have
thereof his writ of Execution.
Marcus Williams
vs
Henry W. Crow
Petition and Summons
Now at this Day Comes the parties into Court and the Plaintiff files
herein his petition and the said Defendant being personally present
in Court Confesses Judgment in favor of the Said plaintiff for the
sum of One hundred and seventy eight Dollars and Sixty four Cents
for his debt which said amount the said plaintiff by his attorney
agrees to accept – Therefore it is Considered by the Court here that
the said plaintiff recover of the said defendant the sum so
confessed as aforesaid and his Cost and Charges by him in his behalf
laid out And Expended And That he have thereof his writ of
Execution.
James Quarles & James Thompson – plff
vs
John H. Weidemyer & Heirs – Defts
Assumpsit
Now at this day comes the plaintiff by his attorney and it appearing
to the Court that the Summons in this Cause paid has not been served
upon motion of Said plaintiff by his attorney an alias writ of
Summons is awarded.
Page 26:
August Term 1841
directed to the Sheriff of Cooper County returnable to the next term
of this Court untill which time this Cause is Ordered to be
Continued.
Now at this day Joseph Montgomery, Calvin Waldo & Thomas Wright
Commissioners appointed for the purpose of locating the County Seat
of St. Clair County and made a report of their proceedings in
locating said County seat accompanied by the title Deeds for Who
Lands on which they located Said County Seat together with the
abstract and Evidence of title and the Court having fully examined
the title Deem the Land good & sufficient Conveying to Said County
of St. Clair a title to said Lands in Issue Simple without any
reservation or Condition and the Land is approved by the Court and
it is Ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify to the Tribunal
transacting County business for Said St. Clair County a Copy of this
Decision and Approval.
Ordered that Court adjourn until Court in Course.
F.P. Wright, Circuit Judge
|
