St. Clair County Circuit Court
Microfilm Transcripts

NOVEMBER TERM 1855

Page 70:
Circuit Court Records Continue from Book A

Thursday morning November 1st 1855 Court met pursuant to adjournment present as on yesterday

Elcanah Cain – Plff
vs
William Duckworth – Deft
Civil action
Now at this day comes the parties by their attorneys and the Said defendant by his attorney by leave of the court files herein his Motion and moves the court to rule the said Plaintiff to give additional Security for costs in this cause which said motion and the arguments of counsel thereon being seen heard and fully understood by the court Said motion is by the court Sustained It is therefore ordered by the court that said plaintiff be required to give additional good and responsible Security for costs in this cause at least ninety days before the first day of the next term of this court and that in default thereof this Suit be dismissed.

Thomas F. Wright – Plff
vs
Catharine Brown, Peter Brown, William Brown, Andrew Brown, John Brown, Benjamin Brown, Elizabeth P. Offutt, Henry E. Moran & Nancy Moran, John C. Greenwell & Ruth Greenwell, Columbus Hahn & Gillian Hahn, Milton Williams & Mary Williams, William Overshine & Susan Overshine, Martha Phillips & James Phillips – Defts
Civil Action for title to real Estate
Now at this day comes all of the said Defendants (except Infants who are under the age of 21 years) by their attorney and by leave of the court files herein their answers to said

Page 71:
Circuit Court Records Continue from Book A
Plaintiffs Petition And Foster P. Wright Guardian Ad litem for Martha Phillips and James Phillips And Lawrence Lewis Guardian for John Brown by leave of the court also files herein their answer for said Infant defendants to said Plaintiffs Petition.

Sarah Allinson, William Allinson, John Allinson, Nancy Allison and her husband John Allison – Plaintiffs
against
Mark Allinson, Frances Allinson, George Allinson, Sarah Allinson Jr., James Allinson and Mary Allinson – Defendants
Civil action for Partition and Sale of real Estate
Now at this day comes the plaintiffs by their attorney and It appearing by the return of the Sheriff of St. Clair county Missouri that all of said defendants have been legally Served with process more than Twenty days before the Commencement of this Term of this court notifying each of them of the commencement of this suit and it being Suggested to the court here that all the above named defendants to wit Mark Allinson, Frances Allinson, George Allinson, Sarah Allinson Jr., James Allinson and Mary Allinson are minors and under the age of twenty one years thereupon the court doth appoint William A. McClain Guardian ad Litem for all of said Minors and the said William A. McClain being in court consents to act as Guardian Ad Litem for the Minors aforesaid and thereupon said William A. McClain guardian Ad litem for the Minors aforesaid comes and files his answer to plaintiffs petition and all parties being ready for trial the cause was Submitted to the court upon the petition answer and testimony offered by Plaintiffs and from said petition answer and testimony offered in the cause the court doth find that Robert Allinson late of St. Clair County Missouri departed this life intestate in the Month of December 1848

Page 72:
November Term 1855

Seized and possessed of the following described real Estate to Wit the North ½ of the North East ¼ of Section No. 32 in Township No. 39 of Range No. 27 containing 80 acres of land situated in the county of St. Clair in the State of Missouri And the court doth further find that said Robert Allinson dec’d left a widow to wit Sarah Allinson one of the plaintiffs who is entitled for and during her natural life to one third of the real Estate aforesaid that he also left ten children to wit William Allinson, John Allinson, Nancy Allison (intermarried with John Allison), Mark Allinson, Frances Allinson, George Allinson, Sarah Allinson Jr., James Allinson and Mary Allinson and Robert Allinson each of who were entitled to one tenth of the real Estate aforesaid subject to the widows dower aforesaid that Since the death of the said Robert Allinson first named Robert Allinson one of the above named children has departed this life leaving as his heirs his mother the aforesaid Sarah Allinson and nine brothers and sisters to wit William Allinson, John Allinson, Nancy Allison (intermarried with John Allison), Mark Allinson, Frances Allinson, George Allinson, Sarah Allinson Jr., James Allinson, and Mary Allinson and said Mother and each of the said Brothers and Sisters of the last named Robert Allinson are entitled to one tenth of the share of Robert Allinson Jr. in & to the above described real estate. In consideration of the premises It is by the court here ordered adjudged and decreed that partition of said real Estate be made among and between the widow and children of the first named Robert Allinson according to their respective rights as herein before ascertained and the court doth further find that the gross value of the widows dower (To wit Sarah Allinson Sr.) in the real Estate aforesaid is one hundred and fifty Dollars and It being apparrant to the court here from the Nature and quantity of the real Estate aforesaid and the number of the

Page 73:
November Term 1855

owners thereof that partition thereof cannot be made in Kind It is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that the Sheriff of the County of St. Clair proceed to sell to the highest bidder the real Estate aforesaid on the following terms to wit ten per cent cash in hand and twelve months credit on the remainder and after payment of the costs charges and expenses of this proceeding said Sheriff Shall pay over to the parties to this Suit their respective shares as Set forth in this decree and it is further ordered that Waldo P. Johnson attorney at law be allowed Seventeen & 50/100 Dollars for his Services in this case to be taxed and aid as costs and it is further Ordered that Said Sheriff report his proceedings under this order to this court And the opinion of the Court in accordance herewith is filed herein.

Jabel Brown – Plff
vs
Mary Barger, Franklin Barger, Catharine Shoemaker, Peter Shoemaker, John Brown, Jabel Brown, Sarah Brown, Mary Brown, Rhodes Brown, Sarah Brown, Joseph Brown and Samuel Brown – Defts
Civil Action for Partition and Sale of real Estate
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff by his attorney and dismisses this Suit as to Catharine Shoemaker and Peter Shoemaker and asks leave to amend his petition in this cause And to him leave is granted by the court to amend his said petition and by leave of the court said Plaintiff files herein his amended petition.

Mary E. Largent by her next friend Marcus L. Largent – Plff
vs
William Thompson – Deft
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff by her attorney and asks leave to amend her petition in this cause and to her leave is granted by the court to amend her said petition.

Page 74:
November Term 1855

The Book “A” containing the Records of this court being filled up It is ordered by the court that the proceedings in this court commencing with this days proceedings be transferred to and entered in Book “B” being the old “Chancery Record” of this Court commencing at page 70 of said Book.

State of Missouri – Plff
vs
Marcellus J. Harris – Deft
Indictment for murder
Now at this day comes the circuit attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf as well as the Said defendant in his own proper person and also by attorney And by agreement of the parties this cause is by the court ordered to be continued until the next term of this court.

State of Missouri – Pltff
vs
Andrew Baker – Deft
Indictment for Murder
Now at this day comes the circuit attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf as well as the said defendant in his own proper person and also by attorney And the Demurrer filed by said defendant on yesterday coming on to be heard and being seen heard and fully understood by the court as well as the arguments of counsel thereon It is considered by the court that said demurrer be and the same is by the court overruled whereupon the said defendant by his attorney Excepted to the decision of the court in overruling his said demurrer And both parties being ready for trial the defendant for his plea in this behalf says he is not guilty in manner and form as in said Indictment he Stands charged and for his trial puts himself upon the country and

Page 75:
November Term 1855

the said circuit attorney doth the same And there upon comes a Jury To wit Richard Lenox, Nicholas Bray, David Perrin, James H. Justus, James Barnett, Richard G. Woods, William Hodgson, Adam Coulthard, John Cochran, Walker Jones, Pendleton A. Motley, and William T. Seal Twelve good and lawful men Elected and Sworn to Well and truly try the Issue in this Cause Joined who after hearing a portion of the evidence and there not being sufficient time to get through with the evidence this evening the Jury was by the court adjourned until tomorrow morning 8 oclock under the usual charge of the court.

Finas Anderson & Melsina Anderson, Thomas Walton & Elizabeth Walton, James Anderson by his guardian William S. Anderson and William H. Lovlinger – Pltffs
vs
Riley Anderson – Deft
Petition for Partition and Sale of real Estate
It being Suggested to the court here that the Said Defendant Riley Anderson is an infant under the age of Twenty one years It is therefore ordered by the court that Foster P. Wright be appointed Guardian Ad Litem for said Infant defendant who being in court consents to act as Such Guardian And thereupon Said Guardian by term of the court files herein his answer for Said Infant defendant.

It is ordered by the court that all pleadings in actions on bonds and notes be filed by one oclock on tomorrow morning.

State of Missouri
vs
George W. Yeater
Indictment for felonious Assault
Now at this day comes the circuit attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf as well as the said Defendant in his own proper person and by attorney and by agreement of the parties this cause is by the court ordered to be continued until the next term of this court.

Page 76:
November Term 1855

Mary Ann Austin – Plff
against
Samuel Austin – Deft
Petition for Divorce
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff by her attorney and files herein her petition verified by her affidavit And it appearing to the court from said petition and affidavit that the said defendant is a non resident of the state of Missouri It is therefore ordered by the court that said Defendant be notified of the commencement of this Suit the object and general nature of which is to obtain a divorce from the bonds of matrimony by her contracted with said Defendant upon the grounds of “Wilful desertion” and for such cruel and bad treatment as to render her condition intolerable And that unless he be and appear before the Judge of this court at the courthouse in the Town of Osceola at the next term of said court to be begun and held on the 3rd Monday after the 4th Monday in March next and on or before the third day of said term answer or demur to said petition the same will be taken as confessed And it is further ordered that a copy of this order be published in the “Osceola Independent” as the law requires.

State of Missouri – Pltff
vs
Marcellus Harris – Deft
Indictment for Murder
Now at this day comes the circuit attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf as well as the said Defendant in his own proper person as principal and Pleasant M. Cox, Aurclius B. Harris, Edwin E. Harris and John T. McClain as his Sureties and acknowledge themselves to owe and Stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the Sum of Ten thousand Dollars to be levied of their respective goods and chattels lands and Tenements to the use of Said State to be rendered void upon condition that the Said defendant Marcellus J. Harris Shall make his personal appearance before the Judge of this court at the courthouse in the Town of Osceola on the first day of the next term of Said court to answer said

Page 77:
November Term 1855

“Indictment for Murder” and abide the Decision of the court and not depart the court without leave.

The Grand Jury returns into court here and by their foreman presented the following bills of Indictment To wit “one Bill of Indictment against [space] for assault with intent to Commit a rape”
one bill of Indictment against Richard R. Foust for failing to keep road in repair
And also their report of the condition of the common Jail of St. Clair county which is by the court ordered to be certified to the St. Clair county court And having no further business before them were by the court discharged.

It is ordered by the court that capias writs Issue on all Indictments found at this Term of this court directed to the Sheriff of the proper county.

State of Missouri by John H. Woolf Prosecutor – Plff
vs
George W. Yeater – Deft
Assault & Battery & appeal from JP
Now at this day comes the parties by their attorneys and by agreement of said parties It is ordered by this court that this cause be continued until the next term of this court.

John Wix Adm’r of Robert Beaty Dec’d – Plff
vs
William N. Patterson – Deft
Appeal from JP
Now at this day comes the said parties by their attorneys and by agreement of said parties this cause is by the court ordered to be continued until the next term of this court.

Ordered that court adjourn until tomorrow Morning 8 oclock. De Witt Ballou Circuit Judge

Page 78:
November Term 1855

Friday morning November 2nd 1855 court met pursuant to adjournment Present as on yesterday

William R. Martin & Charles J. Martin trading under the firm of Martin & Brothers – Plffs
vs
Matthew Arbuckle & William M. Owsley – Defts
Civil action on two Notes
Now at this day comes the said plaintiffs by their attorney and it appearing to the court that the said defendants have both been personally Served with proof more than Twenty days before the first day of this term of this court by their being legally delivered to each of them a copy of the petition and writ and the said defendants being Severally three times called comes not but makes default nor have either of them filed an answer in said cause wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of an answer And this action being founded on two promissory notes for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due is ascertained and the Court having Examined the said promissory note mentioned in the first count in said petition finds there is due thereon as principal and Interest the Sum of Two hundred and Seventeen Dollars and fifty Seven cents and the court having also examined the Said promissory note Mentioned in Said Second count and finds there is Still due thereon the further Sum as principal and interest of Six hundred and fifty five Dollars and twenty four cents making in all the Sum of Eight hundred and Seventy two Dollars and Eighty one cents and the court directs that Judgment be entered for said aggregate amount It is therefore considered by the court that the Said William R. Martin and Charles J.

Page 79:
November Term 1855

Martin have and recover of the said defendants Matthew Arbuckle and William M. Owsley the said sum of Eight hundred and Seventy two Dollars and Eighty one cents so found by the Court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf laid out and Expended and that Execution Issue therefor.

James Riley, James T. Christy & Edward Curtis under the firm of Riley Christy & Co. – Plffs
vs
Matthew Arbuckle and William M. Owsley – Defts
Civil Action on Note
Now at this day comes the said plaintiffs by their attorney and it appearing to the court that each of said defendants have been duly served with process more than twenty days before the first day of this term of this court by having delivered to each of them a copy of said petition and writ and said defendants having been severally three times called comes not but makes default nor having they or either of them filed an answer in this cause wherefore this Suit remains undefended and Judgment ought to be rendered for failure to answer And this action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due may be ascertained and the court having examined the said promissory note finds there is still due plaintiffs thereon as principal and Interest the sum of Four hundred and fifty six Dollars and sixty six cents and directs that Judgment be sentenced thereon for that amount It is therefore considered by the court that said plaintiffs James Riley, James T. Christy & Edward Curtis have and recover of said defendants Matthew Arbuckle and William M. Owsley the said Sum of Four hundred and fifty six Dollars and 66 Cents So ascertained to be due as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf laid out and Expended and that Execution Issue therefore.

Page 80:
November Term 1855

State of Missouri – Plff
vs
Andrew Baker – Deft
Indictment for Murder
Now at this day comes again the circuit attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf as well as the Said Defendant in his own proper person and by attorney and the Jury Sworn on yesterday to try this cause returns into court here pursuant to adjournment And after hearing the remainder of the Evidence in the cause returned into court the following verdict To wit “We the Jury find the defendant not guilty in manner and form as he Stands charged in the Indictment Walker Jones Foreman” It is therefore considered by the court that the Said defendant Andrew Baker be acquitted and from his recognizance be discharged and that he go hence thereof without day.

Ann Looney & Others
vs
William G. Looney & Others
Petition for Partition & Sheriffs Deed
Be it remembered that on this day before the Judge of this court in open court personally appeared George Preston former Sheriff of St. Clair County Missouri and presents to the court a deed by him executed as such Sheriff conveying to Ann Looney all the right title interest claim estate and property of the parties to the above Entitled Cause in and to the NW qr of the NE qr of section 23 Township 39 of Range No. 24 containing 40 acres sold by said sheriff by decree of this court for partition And the said George Preston being personally Known to the court to be the person who executed said deed as such sheriff and here in open court acknowledged the same to be his act and deed for the purposes therein contained.

Page 81:
November Term 1855

Ann Looney & others – Plff
vs
William G. Looney & others – Deft
Petition for Partition And Sheriffs Deed
Be it remembered that on this day before the court in open court personally appeared George Preston former Sheriff of St. Clair county Mo. and presents to the court a Deed by him executed as such Sheriff conveying to Jesse Looney all the right title interest & claim of said parties to said land in and to the NE qr of the NW qr of Section No. 23 in Township No. 39 of Range No. 24 containing 40 acres in St. Clair County Missouri sold by him as such Sheriff for partition And the said George Preston being personally Known to the court and in open court here acknowledged the Same to be his act and deed for the purposes therein Contained.

James M. Breckenridge & others Ex parte
Petition for Partition and Sheriffs Deed
Be it remembered that on this day before the court here in open court personally appeared George Preston former Sheriff of St. Clair County Mo. and presents to the court a deed by him executed as such Sheriff conveying to John F. Weidemeyer All the right title interest and Claim of said parties in and to the W ½ of the SE qr and the E ½ of the SW frl qr and W ½ of the SW frl qr of Section No. 9 and the SE frl qr of Section No. 8 all in Township No. 37 of Range No. 26 containing in all --- acres in St. Clair county Mo. Sold by him for partititon under a decree of this court And the said George Preston being personally Known to the court here to be the person who executed the same and here in open court acknowledged the same to be his act and deed for the purposes therein contained.

James M. Breckenridge & others Ex parte
Petition for Partitiion And Sheriffs Deed
Be it remembered that on this day personally appeared before the court here in open court George Preston former Sheriff of St. Clair County Mo. And presents to the court a deed by him executed as such Sheriff

Page 82:
November Term 1855

conveying to Elisha H. Bell all the right title interest and claim of Said parties in and to the SE qr of the SE qr of Section No. 22 and the W ½ of the SW qr of Section No. 23 and the NW frl qr (SSR) in Section No. 24 all in Township No. 37 of Range No. 26 in St. Clair county Mo. Sold by said Sheriff under a decree of this court for Partition And the said George Preston being personally Known to the court here and here in open court acknowledges the same to be his act and deed for the purposes therein contained.

County of St. Clair for the use of Township No. 39 Range No. 25
vs
John T. Hammond
Execution and Sheriffs Deed
Be it remembered that on this day personally appeared before the court here in open court George Preston former Sheriff of St. Clair county Mo. and presents to the court a deed by him Executed as such Sheriff conveying to Thomas J. Smith all the right and title of the said John T. Hammond in and to the NW qr of the SE qr of Section No. 17 in Township No. 37 of Range No. 25 containing 40 acres in St. Clair County Mo. Sold by said Sheriff under execution and the said George Preston being personally known to the court here to be the person who executed said Deed and here in open court acknowledges the Same to be his act and deed for the purposes therein contained.

County of St. Clair for the use of Township No. 39 of Range No. 25
vs
John T. Hammond
Execution & Sheriffs Deed
Be it remembered that on this day personally Appeared before the court here in open court George Preston former Sheriff of St. Clair county Mo. And presents to the court a deed by him Executed conveying to Pleasant M. Cox all the right and

Page 83:
November Term 1855

title of the said John T. Hammond in and to the SW qr of the SW qr of Section No. 16 and the SW qr of the NE qr of Section No. 21 all in Township No. 39 of Range No. 25 in St. Clair county Mo. Sold by said Sheriff under execution Issued from this court. And the said George Preston being personally Known to the court here to be the person who executed said deed and here in open court acknowledged the same to be his act and deed for the purposes therein contained.

Two oclock PM
John T. McClain assigner of Corbin T. Barnes – Plff
vs
Christopher C. Corbin – Deft
Civil Action
Now at this day comes the Said Plaintiff by his attorney And it appearing to the court here that said defendant has been legally Served with process in this cause by copy more than fifteen days before the first day of this term of this court and the said defendant though three times solemnly Called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And this action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due is by the court ascertained to be as principal and interest the sum of Seven hundred and thirty three Dollars and Seventy six cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said Plaintiff have and recover against the said defendant the said sum of $733.66 cents so found by the court as aforesaid together with his costs in this behalf laid out and Expended and that Execution Issue therefore.

John T. McClain assignee of Corbin & Barnes – Plff
Vs
Louis Fournier – Deft
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said

Page 84:
November Term 1855

Plaintiff by his attorney and It appearing to the court that the said Defendant has been legally Served with process in this Cause by copy more than fifteen days before the first day of this term of this court and the said defendant being three times Solemnly called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to said Plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And this action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due as principal and Interest is by the Court ascertained to be Two hundred and Seventy Nine Dollars and Twenty Cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said Plaintiff have and recover against the Said Defendant the said sum of $279.20 cents So found by the court as aforesaid together with his costs in this behalf and that Execution Issue therefore.

Charles H. Yeater – Plff
vs
Daniel B. Kidd and Christopher Y. Kidd – Defts
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the Said plaintiff by his attorney and It appearing to the court that both of Said defendants have been Legally Served with process in this cause by copy more than fifteen days before the first day of this term of this court and the Said defendants being Severally three times Solemnly called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to Said plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And this action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due as principal and interest is by the court ascertained to be one hundred and Sixty Six dollars and seventy cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said Plaintiff have and recover against the Said defendants the said Sum of $166.70 cents

Page 85:
November Term 1855

So found by the court as aforesaid together with his costs and charges in this behalf laid out and Expended and that Execution Issue therefore.

Wayman Crow, Phocian McCrary, William M. Barksdale & George D. Appleton – Plffs
vs
David S. Corbin & Talton T. Barnes
Civil action on 2 notes
Now at this day comes again here into court the said plaintiffs by their attorney and the said Defendants being severally three times Solemnly called comes not but makes default And there being no answer to said Plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And this action being founded on two promissory notes for the direct payment of Money where by the amount remaining due Plaintiffs as principal and Interest is by the court ascertained to be the sum of Nineteen hundred and forty four Dollars and fifty five cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said Plaintiffs have and recover against the said defendants the said sum of $1944.53 cents so found by the Court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf laid out and Expended and that Execution Issue therefore.

William Dean Surviving partner of the late firm of E.R. Mitchell & Co. – Plff
vs
David S. Corbin I& Talton T. Barnes – Defts
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff by his attorney and the said defendants being Severally three times called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the Said plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And the action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due Plaintiff as principal and Interest is by the court ascertained to be the Sum of one thousand and Eighteen Dollars and Seven cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said Plaintff have and recover against the said defendants

Page 86:
November Term 1855

the Said sum of $1018.07 cents so found by the court as aforesaid together with his costs and charges in this behalf laid out and expended and that execution Issue therefore.

Caleb Jones, Rollin Lyman, Edwin B. Calhoun & Luther Challis – Plffs
vs
David S. Corbin & Talton T. Barnes – Defts
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and the Said defendant being severally three times Solemnly called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said plaintiffs Petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And the action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due plaintiffs is by the court ascertained to be the Sum of one hundred and thirty Dollars and eighty one cents It is therefore ordered by the court that the said Plaintiffs have and recover against the said defendants the said sum of $130.81 cents so found by the court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf Laid out and expended and that execution Issue therefor.

Caleb Jones, William D. Muir & Luther Challis – Plffs
vs
David S. Corbin & Talton T. Barnes – Defts
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and the said Defendants being Severally three times Solemnly Called Comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said Plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of an answer And this action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount remaining due plaintiffs is by the court ascertained to be the Sum of Eight hundred and twenty two Dollars and

Page 87:
November Term 1855

fifty five cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said plaintiffs have and recover against the said defendant the said sum of $822.55 cents so found by the court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf laid out and expended and that execution Issue therefor.

Richard C. Shackleford & Co. – Plffs
vs
David S. Corbin & Talton T. Barnes – Defts
Civil action on two notes
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and the Said defendants being severally three times solemnly called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said Plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And the action being founded on two promissory notes for the direct payment of money whereby the amount remaining due Plaintiffs as principal and Interest is by the court ascertained to be the sum of six hundred and five Dollars and Twenty cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said Plaintiffs have and recover against the said defendants the said sum of $605.20 cents so found by the court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf laid out and Expended and that execution Issue therefor.

Richard C. Shackleford & Co. – Plffs
vs
David S. Corbin & Talton T. Barnes – Defts
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and the Said defendants being Severally three times Solemnly called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of an answer And this action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount due Plaintiffs is by the court ascertained to be the

Page 88:
November Term 1855

sum of Four hundred and thirty four Dollars and forty eight cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said plaintiffs have and recover against the said Defendants the said sum of $434.48 cents so found by the court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf Laid out and expended and that execution Issue therefor.

Cornelius Noonan & John M. Tooley – Plffs
vs
David S. Corbin & Talton T. Barnes – Deft
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and the Said defendants being severally three times Solemnly called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And the action being founded on a promissory note whereby the amount remaining due Plaintiffs is by the court ascertained to be the sum of Seventy four Dollars and eighty two cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said plaintiffs have and recover against the said Defendants the Said sum of $74.82 cents so found by the court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf laid out and expended And that execution Issue therefor.

Henry J. Brant, Francis G. Brant and Alexander C. Orrick – Plffs
vs
David S. Corbin & Talton T. Barnes – Defts
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the said plaintiffs by their attorney and the said defendants being three times severally called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said Plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And this motion being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment

Page 89:
November Term 1855

of money whereby the amount Due plaintiffs is by the court ascertained to be the sum of one hundred and Seventy one Dollars and Twenty cents. It is therefore considered by the court that the said Plaintiff have and recover against the said Defendants the Said Sum of $171.20/100 So found by the court as aforesaid together with their costs and charges in this behalf laid out and Expended and that execution Issue therefor.

George W. Estes, Spencer Estes, Sylvey Boring, Nancy Estes & John Estes – Plffs
vs
Robert S. Estes, John A. Estes, Middleton Estes & Elizabeth Estes – Defts
Petition for Partition & Sale of land warrant No. 47.675 for 40 acres & sheriffs report of sale & assignment
Be it remembered that on this day personally appeared before the court in open court Daniel P. Morgan Sheriff of St. Clair county Mo. And presents to the court his report of the Sale of said Same warrant No. 47.675 sold by him under a decree of this court for partition which is by the court approved and ordered to be filed. And said Sheriff presents to the court a deed of assignment by him executed conveying all the right title and interest of the Said parties in and to Said land warrant No. 47.675 for 40 acres to Thomas J. Smith and Said Sheriff here in open court acknowledges the Same to be his act and deed for the purposes therein contained.

Mary E. Largent by her next friend Marcus L. Largent – Plff
vs
Tillman Thompson & Adaline Thompson – Defts
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said parties by their Attorney, and by leave of the court the said Plaintiff files herein her amended petition and by leave of the court the said Defendants files herein their Demurrer.

Page 90:
November Term 1855

Mary E. Largent by her next friend Marcus L. Largent – Plff
vs
William Thompson – Deft
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said parties by their attorneys and by leave of the court the said plaintiff files herein his amended petition And by leave of the court the defendant files herein his demurrer.

John G. Hennley – Plff
vs
Thomas Coulthard & John Hernden – Defts
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff by his attorney and on his motion It is ordered by the court that an alias writ of Summon be Issued against the said defendant John Herndon.

John T. Metcalf – Plff
vs
Daniel Dale – Deft
Civil action
Now at this day comes the Said parties by their attorneys and on motion of said plaintiff leave is granted him to file his amended petition by paying the costs of this term of this court in said cause And on motion of said Defendant leave is granted him to file his answer to said Plaintiffs amended petition at the next term of this court and It is agreed by said parties that this cause may be tried at the next term of this court unless continued for cause.

William L. Vaughan – Plff
vs
Anthony S. Fike, Robert S. Fkie, Joseph T. Dunn & Andrew J. Culbertson – Defts
Civil action on note
Now at this day comes the Said Plaintiff by his attorney and It appearing to the court that all of said defendants have been legally served

Page 91:
November Term 1855

With process in this cause more than fifteen days before the first day of this term of this court and said defendants being Severally three times solemnly called comes not but makes default and there being no answer to the said Plaintiffs petition wherefore Judgment ought to be rendered for want of answer And this action being founded on a promissory note for the direct payment of money whereby the amount remaining due said plaintiff is by the court ascertained to be the sum of Six hundred and Seventy Dollars and thirteen cents It is therefore considered by the court that the said plaintiff have and recover against the said defendants Anthony S. Fike, Robert T. Fike, Joseph T. Dunn and Andrew J. Culbertson the said Sum of $670.13 cents So found by the court as aforesaid together with his costs and Charges in this behalf laid out and expended and that execution Issue therefor.

Ordered that court adjourn until tomorrow morning 8 oclock. De Witt C. Ballou Circuit Judge

Saturday morning November 3rd 1855 court met pursuant to adjournment present as on yesterday

James G. Bouldin
vs
Robert H.N. Sanders
Petition for title to real estate
Now at this day Comes the said plaintiff by his attorney and it being proved to the Satisfaction of the Court that said defendant Robert H.N. Sanders is not a resident of the State of Missouri the Court doth therefore order notice to be published in the South West Democrat a news paper published in this State and to be published in S’d paper for Eight weeks Successively

Page 92:
November Term 1855

the last insertion to be at least four weeks before the next term of this Court to wit. To Robert H.N. Sanders Sir: you are hereby notified that Said James E. Bouldin has Commenced Civil action against you in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Clair in the State of Missouri in the nature of a Suit in Chancery for the general nature and object of which is to obtain from defendant a deed of Conveyance to plaintiff of all defendants right title and interest in and to a certain tract of land Known as lot No. 12 of North East fractional quarter of Section one Township 39 of Range 24 Containing 41 28/100 acres lying and being Situated in St. Clair County Missouri and plaintiff, petition alledges among other things that said land together with a large amount of other lands was purchased for the Equal benefit of plaintiff and defendant as Joint owners and tenants in common that on or about the 1st day of January AD 1842 plaintiff purchased of defendant & defendant Sold to plaintiff all & every part & parcel of said lands including Said tract above mentioned for the Sum of $1189.37/100 dollars which plaintiff paid to defendant and that defendant executed to plaintiff a warrantee deed for all of said lands except of the above described tract & that said above described tract was left out of Said deed by mistake and it is also the object of said Suit to correct Said mistake you are further notified that you are required to appear at the next term of the circuit Court of said St. Clair County and on or before the second day thereof which Court will be begun and held at the Court house in the Town of Osceola in the State of Missouri on the fifth Monday after the fourth Monday of March next and then and there answer said petition of plaintiff in Said Suit and unless you do So Said petition will be taken for Confessed.

Page 93:
November Term 1855

Nancy A. Capps – Plff
vs
Andrew Capps – Deft
Petition for Divorce
Now at this day Comes the Said plaintiff here into Court by her attorney and it being proved to the Court here that the notice to Said defendant of the Commencement of this Suit and of the general nature and object of the Same ordered to be given by the Clerk of this Court in vacation has been published according to said order and said defendant having failed to file any answer to said petition and being three times solemnly Called Comes not but makes default And Said Cause remaining wholly undefended And said Cause Coming on to be heard the Court after hearing the allegations and proof of said plaintiff the Court doth here find from the evidence that said plaintiff and Defendant were entered in the bonds of matrimony Sometime in the year AD 1855 and that they lived together as husband and wife for ---- months and during all the time Said plaintiff Conducted herself well towards her said husband the defendant and treated said defendant well and Kindly as her said husband and the Court doth further find that although said plaintiff has fulfilled the part of a dutiful wife that Said defendant disregarding her voice and undertaking by cruelly treating plaintiff and that said defendant has been Guilty of Such Cruel and barbarous treatment towards Said plaintiff and that defendant offered Such indignities to the person of plaintiff by Striking and Kicking her So as to render her condition in life intolerable and the Court further finds that Said plaintiff was a resident of St. Clair County for more than two years before the commencement of this suit and that said plaintiff is the innocent and injured party the Court further finds

Page 94:
November Term 1855

that the maiden name of said plaintiff was Nancy Ann McDaniel Now therefore in Consideration of the premises it is hereby ordered adjudged and decreed by the Court here that the said bonds of matrimony entered into between said plaintiff and said defendant be and they are hereby forever dissolved and nulled and held for naught and said plaintiff divorced from said defendant and that Said Nancy Ann Capps be restored to the all the rights and immunities of an unmarried woman and that She be restored to her maiden name which was Nancy Ann McDaniel and that the said plaintiff & defendant be allowed to marry again and that Said plaintiff pay the Costs and that defendant have thereof execution and the opinion of the Court is here filed.

William C. Douglass – Plaintiff
against
William H. Crawford, James Crawford, Waid Crawford, Roan S. Howard, Missouri Howard, James W. Howard, Sarah T. Howard, Lot D. Howard and Samuel E. Howard – Defendants
Civil Action partition and sale of real estate
Now at this day Comes the plaintiff by his attorney and it appearing to the Court by the return of the Sheriff of Monteau County in the State of Missouri that William H. Crawford, James Crawford, Waid Crawford, Roan S. Howard and Thomas Howard had been duly and legally Served with process more than 20 days before the first day of this Term of this Court, notifying each of them the Commencement of this Suit and it being proved to the satisfaction of the Court by evidence offered to the Court here that the order of publication made by the Clerk of this Court in Vacation notifying

Page 95:
November Term 1855

James W. Howard, Sarah D. Howard, Lot D. Howard and Samuel Howard nonresidents defendants of the Commencement of this Suit and requiring each of said non resident Defendants to appear on the first day of this term of this Court had been duly published in the Democratic Lancet a weekly newspaper published in Springfield in the State of Missouri for eight consecutive weeks the last insertion having been made more than four weeks before the first day of this term of this court and it being suggested to the Court here that each and all of said Defendants are infants under the age of twenty one years thereupon the Court here doth appoint William A. McClain Guardian ad litem for William H. Crawford, Gerrod Crawford, Waid Crawford, Roan S. Howard, Miriam Howard, James K. Howard, Sarah T. Howard, Lot D. Howard and Sam’l C. Howard, infants and minors of the said decd the said William A. McClain being in Court Consents to act as Guardian ad litem for all of said Defendants and thereupon the Said William A. McClain Guardian ad litem for the aforesaid minors comes and files his answer to the petition of plaintiff and all parties being ready for trial and neither party requiring a jury the Cause is Submitted to the Court upon the petition answers and evidence offered by plaintiff and from said petition answers and evidences offered in the cause the Court doth find that Lot Howard of Moniteau County Missouri died sometime during the year 1847 that pursuant to his death he had Contracted with one John Crawford for the following described lands in St. Clair County Missouri to wit the W ½ NW ¼ of Section 19 Township 20 of Range No. 44 and the SE ½ of the NE ¼ of Section No. 24 Township 38 of Range 25 the whole Containing 144 44/100 Acres that after the death of Said Lot Howard and on the 14th day of Feby 1847 said John Crawford and his wife Conveyed by deed duly acknowledged

Page 96:
November Term 1855

the aforesaid land to the legal heirs and representatives of the said Lot Howard Sr. dec’d which heirs and legal representatives were as follows to wit Matilda Howard widow of said Lot Howard Sr., Waid Howard, J. Stephen Howard, Sarah M. Howard, William T. Howard, Jane G. Crawford intermarried with Jesse H. Crawford & Martha M. Fisher intermarried with Peter K. Fisher, Frances A. Crawford intermarried with John Crawford, Roan L. Howard, Minerva Howard, John T. Howard and George W.D. Howard the widow being entitled to one third of the real estate aforesaid for and during her natural life and each of the aforesaid Children being entitled to one twelfth of the real estate aforesaid Subject to the widows dower aforesaid The Court further finds that Since the death of Said Lot Howard Sr., George W.L. Howard died never having been married and leaving no Children but leaving as his heirs his mother Matilda Howard aforesaid and his brothers and sisters eleven in number above named each of whom are entitled to one eleventh of the real estate aforesaid Subject to the widows dower aforesaid and the Court further finds that Matilda Howard widow of Lot Howard Sr. deceased Conveying by deed to Wm. C. Douglass her dower interest in the real estate aforesaid said deed dated the 20th March 1855 and that Waid Howard Jr. and that Francis E. his wife, Stephen Howard and Martha his wife, Phillip D. Stephens and Sarah his wife, James L. Howard and Louisa J. his wife, William L. Howard and Elizabeth his wife, Jesse H. Crawford and Jane G. his wife, and Peter W. Fisher and Rhoda M. his wife by Deed dated 10th January 1855 Conveyed to William C. Douglass the plff in this suit all their right title and interest in the real estate aforesaid being Seven elevenths of said land, And the said Douglass putting upon claim but expressly answering any claim in behalf of the Deed of widow –

Page 97:
November Term 1855

Matilda Howard to him. The Court finds that said William C. Douglass is entitled by virtue of the Conveyance aforesaid to Seven Elevenths of the real estate aforesaid that Miriam Howard and Roan S. Howard are each entitled to one eleventh part of the real estate aforesaid And the Court further finds that Francis D. Howard one of the Children of Lot Howard Sr. has died leaving these children to wit William H. Crawford, Gerrod Crawford and Waid Crawford who are entitled to the Share of their deceased mother and are each entitled to one third of one eleventh of the real estate aforesaid. And the Court further finds that John L. Howard another of the Children of Lot Howard Sr. has also died leaving as his legal heirs four children to wit: James W. Howard, Sarah D. Howard, Lot D. Howard and Louisa E. Howard who are entitled to the Share of their deceased father and each entitled to one fourth of one eleventh of the real estate aforesaid. In Consideration of the premises it is by the Court here ordered adjudged and decreed that partition of said real estate be made among and between the parties to this Suit according to their respective rights as herein before ascertained. And it being apparent to the Court from the nature and quantity of the real estate aforesaid and the number of the owners thereof that partition thereof Cannot be made in Kind it is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that the Sheriff of the County of St. Clair proceed to sell to the highest bidder the real estate aforesaid for cash in hand and after payment of the Costs Charges and expenses of this proceeding Said Sheriff Shall pay over to the parties to this Suit their respective Shares as set forth in this decree and it is further ordered that Waldo P. Johnson attorney at law be allowed the Sum of Thirty Dollars for his Services in this case to be levied and paid as Cost and it is further ordered that said Sheriff report his proceedings under this order to this Court And the opinion of the court in accordance herewith is filed herein.

Page 98:
November Term 1855

George L. Yeater by his guardian & next friend George W. Yeater
vs
John H. Woolf
Civil Action
Now at this day comes the Said parties by their attorneys Waldo P. Johnson appearing as attorney for said Plaintiff and William A. McClain as attorney for said defendant And by agreement of Said parties by their said attorneys this Suit is to be dismissed by said Plaintiff And said Defendant is to pay all the costs in this cause and A written Statement signed by said Defendant here presented to the Court is by agreement of Said parties Ordered to be Spread upon the Record and embodied into the Judgment in this cause which is in the following words and purposes to wit “I John H. Woolf hereby state that in relation to the Suit for slander now pending in the circuit court of St. Clair county Missouri wherein George L. Yeater is plaintiff and myself defendant
That as to the charge alledged in the petition against me for having said that said Yeater had been guilty of improper conduct with a heifer
I hereby fully deny that I ever Said or pretended so to charge him I Know nothing derogatory to the character of said Yeater of my own Knowledge
And what I may have said of him in retaliation to the charge was based upon more rumor for the truth of which I do not endorse And I further State that I have Known Said Yeater for Some time and have looked upon him as a clever young man of good character And what I may have said against him was under excitement I didn’t pretend then to indorse as true but Spoke of it as more rumor nor did I then nor do I now believe the charge
John H. Woolf
October 13th 1855
Test
W.P. Johnson, W.A. McClain
It is therefore considered and ordered by

Page 99:
November Term 1855

the Court that this Suit be dismissed and discontinued And that the said plaintiff have and recover against the Said defendant his costs and charges in this behalf by him laid out and expended and that execution Issue therefore.

Jabel Brown – Plaintiff
against
Mary Barger, Franklin Barger, John Brown, Jabel Brown Jr., Sarah Brown, Mary Brown, Rhodes Brown, Noah Brown, Joseph Brown, and Vincent Brown – Defendants
Civil Action for partition and sale of Real Estate
Now at this day again comes the plaintiff by his attorney and it appearing to the Court by the return of the Sheriff of St. Clair County Missouri that Defendants John Brown, Jabel Brown Jr., Sarah Brown, Mary Brown, Rhodes Brown, Noah Brown, Joseph Brown and Lawrence Brown had been duly served with process more than 20 days before the first day of this Term of this Court notifying each of said Defendants of the Commencement of this suit and it being proved to the satisfaction of the court by evidence offered to the Court here that the order of publication made by the Clerk of this Court in vacation notifying Mary Barger and Franklin Barger non resident defendants of the Commencement of this Suit and the nature thereof and requiring each of said nonresident Defendants to appear before the Judge of this Court at this term of this Court and to answer or demur to said petition on or before the fourth day of said Term, had been duly published in the South West Democrat a weekly newspaper published in the city of Warsaw Benton County in the State of Missouri for eight consecutive weeks the last insertion having been made

Page 100:
November Term 1855

More than four weeks before the first day of this Term of this court and it having been suggested to the Court here that all of the Defendants to this Suit were infants under the age of 21 years except Mary Barger and Franklin Barger and thereupon the Court appointed William Whitley Guardian ad litem for Sarah Brown, Mary Brown, Rhodes Brown, Noah Brown, Joseph Brown and Samuel Brown and the Said William Whitley having accepted the appointment filed his answer to plaintiffs petition and the Court further appointed Mark L. Means Guardian ad litem for John Brown and Jabel Brown Jr. who being in Court Consented to act and thereupon said Mark L. Means Guardian ad litem for John Brown and Jabel Brown Jr. files his answer to plaintiffs petition. And the Said Mary Barger and Franklin Barger non residents having been three times Solemnly Called Comes not but makes default And All parties being ready for trial and neither party requiring a Jury the Cause is Submitted to the Court upon the amended petition of plaintiff the answers of infant defendants by their Guardians ad litem and the testimony offered in the Cause by plff and firm said petition on proof and evidence the Court here doth find that Joseph Brown late of St. Clairl County Missouri died in the year 1852 leaving as his heirs and legal representatives his father to wit Rhodes Brown who departed this life previous to the Commencement of this Suit said Rhodes Brown dec’d having left no heirs save and except the other parties to this suit that said Joseph Brown also left at the time of his death one brother to wit Jabel Brown plff also one sister to wit Mary Barger intermarried with Franklin Barger also left eight nephews and nieces children of James Brown a deceased brother said Joseph Brown dec’d to wit Rebecca Brown, Jabel Brown Jr., Sarah Brown, Mary Brown, Rhodes Brown, Noah Brown, Joseph Brown and Samuel Brown. The Court further finds that since the death of said Joseph Brown one

Page 101:
November Term 1855

of his nieces to wit Rebecca Brown has died leaving one child to wit John Brown one of the Defendants to this Suit and who is entitled to the share of his deceased mother Rebecca Brown dec’d. The Court further finds that Joseph Brown dec’d at the time of his death was seized and possessed in fee simple of the following described real estate Situated in St. Clair County Missouri to wit

making in all Seven hundred and Eighty four and 14/100 Acres and the Court further finds that Jabel Brown plaintiff is entitled to one individual third part of the real estate aforesaid that Mary Barger wife of Franklin Barger is entitled to one undivided third part of the real estate aforesaid and that John Brown, Jabel Brown Jr., Sarah Brown, Mary Brown, Rhodes Brown, Noah Brown, Joseph Brown, and Samuel Brown Defendants to the Suit are each entitled to one undivided eighth part of one undivided third part of the real estate aforesaid In consideration of the premises it is by the Court here ordered adjudged and decreed that partition and division of said real estate be made among and between the parties to this Suit according to their respective rights as herein before ascertained and set forth And it is further ordered by the court here that Uriah L. Sutherland, Elisha H. Bell and George Preston three respective house holders and residents of St. Clair County Missouri be appointed

Page 102:
November Term 1855

Commissioners to make partition of the real estate aforesaid according to their respective rights and interests of the parties to this suit as the same have been ascertained and determined by the Court here and it is further ordered by the Court here that William A. McClain and Waldo P. Johnson attorneys at law be allowed the sum of Fifty Dollars for their services in this proceeding to be taxed and paid as other Costs and Wm. J. Mays and Foster P. Wright be allowed Twenty five Dollars to be paid as other Costs And the Court orders and directs that the shares of the said Sarah Brown, Mary Brown, Rhodes Brown, Noah Brown, Joseph Brown and Samuel Brown shall be set off together in one parcel And the opinion of the court in accordance herewith is filed herein.

Finas Anderson and Melsina Anderson his wife, Thomas Walton and Elizabeth Walton his wife, James Anderson by his Guardian Wm. S. Anderson and Wm. H. Frolinger – Plaintiffs
vs
Riley Anderson and infants under the age of Twenty one years – Defendants
Petition for Partition
Now at this day Comes here into Court said plaintiffs by their attorney and Suggests to the Court here that the Said Riley Anderson defendant is an infant within the age of Twenty one years and it appearing to the Satisfaction of the court that said infant had been legally served with process thereupon the Court here appointed Foster P. Wright “Guardian ad litem” for the same Riley Anderson who being in Court here assents to the Same and said defendant by his “Guardian ad litem” filed herein his answer to said plaintiffs petition and by Consent of said parties this Case is to

Page 103:
November Term 1855

Be tried at the presents term of this Court and both parties being ready for trial the Cause is Submitted to the Court here and the Court hereafter hearing the evidence and proof in Said Cause doth find that in the year 1842 one Samuel Anderson of the County of St. Clair departed this life and at the time of the death of Said Samuel Anderson he was Seized and possessed of a fee Simple title to the following described real estate Situate lying and being in the County of St. Clair and State of Missouri To wit The South half of the East half of South East qr of Section 8 Township 37 Range 27 All in Section 9 in Township 37 Range 27 the East half of the West half of the NE qr of Section 9 Containing forty acres and the Court doth further find that since the death of the Said Samuel Anderson by decree of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County Missouri the title to the following lands was decreed to the heirs of said Samuel Anderson To wit: The West half of the East half of NE qr of Section 9 Township 37 Range 27 containing 40 Acres all lying in the County of St. Clair and State of Missouri. And the Court doth further find that at the time of the death of said Samuel Anderson he left the following named persons children and heirs at law to his Said estate William Anderson daughter of Samuel Anderson deceased who intermarried with Finas Anderson is entitled to an undivided fifth part of said real estate Elizabeth Walton late Elizabeth Anderson intermarried with Thos. Walton is entitled to an undivided fifth part of said real estate James Anderson an infant son of Samuel Anderson deceased who sues by his guardian William S. Anderson is entitled to an undivided fifth part of said real estate Riley Anderson another infant son of said Samuel Anderson another infant son of Said Samuel Anderson dec’d is entitled to an undivided fifth part of said real estate and Wm. S. Anderson another son of said who has sold and Conveyed his undivided fifth part to Wm. H. Trolinger the said Wm. H. Trolinger

Page 104:
November Term 1855

Is entitled to one undivided fifth part of said real estate. And the Court further finds that these are all the Children and legal execsoritatives to said estate of Samuel Anderson deceased and that they are tenants in common in said estate and the Court doth further find that from the amount of land and the number of those interested that partition there of in Kind cannot be made without great prejudice to those interested It is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that partition be made between said parties according to the rights of said parties as herein before ascertained and found and that the whole of said real estate be sold by the Sheriff of said county for one fourth ready money the balance on a credit of twelve months as the Statutes in such Cases made and provided directs and it is further ordered and decreed that the shares as ascertained in this decree be paid to said partys and it is further ordered that the Costs of this Suit be first paid out of the proceeds of said Sale before the same be distributed and it is further ordered by the court that the necessary costs and expenses attending this petition together with a fee of Fifteen dollars by the Court to Thomas W. Freeman as his fee as attorney to be equally taxed against all the parties interested the partition and the opinion of the court in this Cause is filed herein.

Peter Brown and others
vs
Elizabeth P. Offutt & others
Petition for Partition
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and by leave of the court files herein their amended petition in this cause.

James M. Gilliam et Al
vs
Jonathan Gillilam Et Al
Petition for Partition & Sheriffs report
Now at this day comes Daniel P. Morgan Sheriff of St. Clair county Mo.

Page 105:
November Term 1855

and presents to the court his report of the Sale of real Estate and Slaves belonging to said parties sold by him by order of this court. which is by the court approved and ordered to be filed herein which is accordingly done.

Mary E. Largent by her next friend and guardian Marcus L. Largent
vs
William Thompson
Civil action
Now at this day comes the Said parties by their attorneys. And the Said Defendant by leave of the court withdraws the Demurrer by him filed on yesterday in this cause. And files herein his motion to and moves the court to dismiss this Suit which said motion having been seen heard and fully understood by the court is by the court overruled whereupon the said defendant by his attorney Excepts to the decision of the court in overruling his said Motion And therefore by leave of the court said Defendant files herein his demurrer in this cause which said demurrer having been seen heard and fully understood by the court is by the court overruled And thereupon the Said Defendant by his attorney Excepts to the decision of the court in overruling his said demurrer And on Motion of said Defendant he is by the court granted until the next term of this court to file his answer to Said plaintiffs petition.

Mary E. Largent by her next friend and guardian Marcus L. Largent
vs
Tillman Thompson & Adaline Thompson
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said parties by their attorneys And the said Defendants by their attorney by leave of the court withdraws the demurrer by them filed on yesterday in this cause And files herein their Motion and moves the court to dismiss this Suit which said motion having been seen heard and fully understood by the court is by the court overruled whereupon the said defendants

Page 106:
November Term 1855

by their attorney Excepts to the decision of the court in overruling Said Motion And by leave of the court files herein their demurrer in this cause which Said Demurrer having been seen heard and fully understood by the court is by the court overruled And thereupon the Said Defendants by their attorney Exempts to the decision of the court in overruling their said demurrer. And on motion of said Defendants they are by the court allowed until the next term of this court to file their answer to said Plaintiffs petition.

John T. McClain assignee of Corbin and Barnes
vs
Henry Pollard
Civil Action
Now at this day comes the parties by their Attorneys and by leave of the Court, the said defendant files herein his answer to said plaintiffs petition and both parties being ready for trial, the cause is submitted to the Court. And the issue of payment in this cause coming on to be tried, the Court after hearing the evidence finds that said sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars the amount claimed by said plff of said defendant is still due, and doth find said issue for the plff It is therefore considered by the Court, that said plff recover of said defendant said sum of $115.00 together with his costs in this suit laid out and expended, And that he have thereof execution. And thereupon said defendant files herein, his motion and affidavit for a new trial, and upon the hearing thereof the Court here sets aside the verdict, and grant a new trial, in said cause to said defendant, upon his paying the costs, in said cause up to the time of granting said new trial.

William C. Douglass
vs
Edward Gray
Civil action Replevin
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff by his attorney and the Said Defendant though three times Solemnly called comes not but

Page 107:
November Term 1855

makes default and Said defendant having failed to file any answer to Said plaintiffs petition whereby said Action remains undefended. And it appearing from Said petition tat this Suit is instituted and prosecuted against said defendant for one Bay Mare, and that plaintiff asks Judgment for a return of Said Mare to him or in default thereof a Judgment for her value and damages for the detention thereof, and it appearing by the return of the Sheriff that Said Mare has been taken and returned to the plaintiff, In Consideration of the premises it is ordered and adjudged that Said plaintiff have and recover of Said defendant the p___ of said mare and that he retain the p___ of her But the Court here not being advised What damages Said plaintiff is entitled to recover of Said defendant for the detention of said mare by said defendant it is therefore ordered that Said damages be inquired of and answer by a Jury to be impannelled in this Court at the next term thereof for that purpose.

It is ordered by the court that all business not otherwise ordered and disposed of be and the same is continued until the next term of this Court.

Page 108:
November Term 1855

Ordered that Court adjourn until court in course. De Witt Ballou Circuit Judge

Back