St. Clair County Circuit Court
Microfilm Transcripts

February Adjourned Term 1854

Page 408:
February Adjourned Term AD 1854

At a circuit court begun and held at the courthouse in The Town of Osceola on Monday the 6th day of February AD 1854 in continuation of the Last November Term pursuant to last adjournment.
Present Waldo P. Johnson Judge
James W. Beck clerk
George Preston Sheriff

It is ordered by the court that William A. McClain be appointed circuit attorney pro tem in consequence of the absence of Burr H. Emerson circuit attorney.

The State of Missouri
vs
Abraham Fenly Jr.
Indictment for Forgery No. 2
Now at this day comes the circuit attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf and Shows to the court a Subpoena duly Served on Israel W. Davis requiring him to appear before the Judge of this court at the courthouse in the Town of Osceola on Monday the 31st day of October 1853 then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain controversy in said court providing wherein the State of Missouri is Plaintiff and Abraham Fenly Jr. is Defendant on the part of the Plaintiff and also to bring with him the records of the county court of Polk county which contains the allowances made by said county court to Said Abraham Fenley Jr. for the years 1851 & 1852 And he having failed to appear or have before the court during Said Term to which he was Summoned said Record on motion of the Said circuit attorney It is ordered by the court that a writ of attachment be issued against the Said Israel W. Davis Directed to the Sheriff of Polk county to have the Said Israel W. Davis before this court with the Said record on the first day of the next term of this court to Testify in said cause and further to answer for a contempt in not attending in obedience to Said Summon.

James T. Teages
vs
David Short
Civil action
Now at this day comes the Said Parties and on motion of Said Plaintiff It is ordered by the court that this cause be continued until the next term of this court at Said Plaintiffs costs It is therefore considered by the court that the Said Defendant recover

Page 409:
Adjourned Term

Against the Said Plaintiff his costs in this behalf Expended about this adjourned Term of this court and that Execution Issue therefor.

Ordered that court adjourn until tomorrow morning 8 oclock. Waldo P. Johnson Cir Judge

Tuesday Morning February 7th 1854 Court met pursuant to Adjournment Present as on yesterday.

William G. Clayton
vs
Tandy K. Kidd
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said parties by their attorneys And the said defendant by his attorney objects to the Plaintiffs answer to the said Defendants interroggatories, which Said answer was filed December 27th 1853 in the office of the clerk of this court And the Said Plaintiff by his attorney Therefore asks leave of the court to withdraw his Said answer And to him Leave is granted by the court to withdraw said answer for the purposes of amending the authentication and file the same again. And thereupon by leave of the court the Said defendant by his attorney files herein his Motion for an order that plaintiff be Examined on an additional interroggating And the Said motion being Seen heard and fully understood by the court. It is ordered by the court that the Said Plaintiff answer the said interroggation accompanying said motion filed. And it is ordered by the court that this cause be continued until the next term of this court.

Jesse Ridgway
vs
Peter B. Cockrell & Francis Sproull
Civil action
Now at this day comes again the parties here into court by their respective attorneys and both parties being ready for trial and both Said plaintiffs & defendant waiving a Jury therefore the trial of said cause was by consent of Said parties Submitted to the court and the court after hearing the pleadings & allegations and proof of the parties doth find that the Said defendants Peter B. Cockerell & Francis Sproull did Execute said promissory note upon which defendants are liable to pay

Page 410:
February AD 1854

the Same to Said plaintiff and that Said defendants by Said promissory note did promise for value received to pay plaintiff two hundred and Eighty Seven dollars & fifty cents to Said plaintiff and Said court doth further find that there is not Sufficient Evidence to Sustain the other issue and do by Said defendants answer and Said court doth find The issues for Said plaintiff upon which Said finding of the court as to the facts and issues in this case the court declares the Case to be that Said plaintiff is entitled to receive of Said defendants the Sum of money in Said promissory note Specified and the Interest therein from the time the Same became due and payable and the court doth further find that Said defendants are indebted to Said plaintiff upon Said promissory note mentioned in Said petition in the Sum of Two hundred Eighty Seven dollars and fifty cents and also the Interest there from the last day of March AD 1844 at the rate of six percent per annum and assess said plaintiffs damage for Said Sum of money in Said promissory note Therefore and the interest therein at the Sum of four hundred fifty Eight dollars and seventy two cents ($458.72) It is therefore considered by the court that Said plaintiff have and recover of said defendants The Sum of Five hundred fifty eight dollars and ninety two cents the amount of damages assessed as aforesaid and also his costs in this behalf laid out and Expended and that Said plaintiff thereof has Expended.

Ordered that court adjourn until court in course.

Jefferson B. Allgood
vs
Jacob V. Dale
Civil action
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff by his attorney and files herein a new bond for costs in this cause.

Ordered that court adjourn until court in course. Waldo P. Johnson Cir Judge

 

Back