Abstract of Circuit Court Record Books 1853 - 1856

GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

January Term 1854
Book D.

p 121.
James F. Hornbeak Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
John P. Campbell Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiffs by their attorneys and it being suggested to the Court that since the last continuance of this cause the Defendant has departed this life. Therefore it is ordered by the Court that this cause be continued and that a Writ of scire facias be issued in this cause returnable to the next term to substitute
the legal heirs and representatives of said Defendant as parties to this suit and that same day be given to Plaintiff.

p 121/122.
John Delaney Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
Jonathan Johnson et al Defendants
Now at this day comes again the Plaintiff in this cause by his attorney and it appearing to the Court here that Jonathan Johnson and Rebecca Johnson his wife formerly Rebecca Cotter, Silas Ray and Jane Ray, his wife, formerly Jane Cotter, George Cotter, Abner Cotter, Margaret Cotter, Hannah Cotter, James Cotter, Richard Cotter, Samuel Cotter and John Cotter, Defendants in this cause, have been duly served and required to appear in this cause at and before the preceding term of this Court and having failed to plead, answer or demur to the action of Plaintiff, and it further appearing to the Court that Joseph Burden the remaining Defendant had answered at the last term of this Court and does not deny the truth of Plaintiff's petition and is willing that the prayer of petitioner be granted. It is therefore adjudged and considered by the Court that said petition be taken as confessed and the cause being submitted to the Court on Plaintiff's petition the Court finds that it is true that James Cotter, dec'd, did in his lifetime sell to Plaintiff the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 36 and the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 and the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 25 Twp 29 of Range 24 W, as stated in Plaintiff's petition and that said James Cotter did convey to said Plaintiff instead of said lands the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 24 and E 1/2 1/2 of NW and E 1/2 of SW quarters of Sect 25 same Township and Range and that said conveyance was not in accordance with the contract with said Plaintiff and said James Cotter and it further appearing that the above named Defendants are the heirs and distributees of the estate of said deceased. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that said deed from said James Cotter deceased to Plaintiff be cancelled Set aside and held for naught so far as the said deceased relates to said 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Sect 24 and E 1/2 of SW qtrs of Sect 25 and instead thereof. It is hereby ordered adjudged and decreed by-the Court that all the right title and interest of said Defendants as heirs at Law of said deceased to the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 36 and the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 and E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 25 TWP 29 of Range 24 W be ordered and adjudged by the Court to vest be and remain in Plaintiff to all interests and purposes. It is further decreed however that said Plaintiff pay the costs of this proceeding.

p 122/123.
Henry X Harrell et al Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action by Attachment
D. Johnson and Co. Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiffs by attorney and on his motion it is ordered that an alias Writ of attachment issue in this cause returnable to the first day of the next term of this Court and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that the Defendants are non-residents of the State of Missouri. It is therefore ordered by the Court
(continued)

33
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI CIRCUIT, COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 122/123 (cont)
that the Defendants be notified by publication published in the SPRINGFIELD ADVERTISER, a newspaper printed in the State for eight weeks successively, the last insertion to be at least four weeks previous to the first day of the next term of this Court notifying the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have filed in this Court against them their petitionand has sued out a Writ of attachment that said attachment has been returned that said Defendants were not found stating in said petition that Defendants on the seventh of December 1848 executed their note to Plaintiff payable four months after date for the sum of three hundred and seven dollars and thirty five cents that Defendants on fourteen January 1850 paid thereon the sum of twentysix dollars praying judgment for the balance due thereon, and that unless they be and appear before the Judge of the Greene Circuit Court on the first day of the next term thereof. Said term commences on the third Monday of July 1894 if the term said _ continues and if not then before the end of the term Judgment will be rendered against them according to the praying of petition.

p 123/124. Friday 13th January 1854.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                             Indictment For Selling Whiskey Without License
Thomas Moore Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes in behalf of the State of Missouri as well as the Defendant and the motion heretofore filed to quash said Indictment coming up for hearing and all and singular the premises being seen and fully understood by the Court, it is considered by the Court that said motion be overruled. And thereupon the said Defendant being demanded of and concerning the premises and how he will acquit himself thereof who for a plea says he is not guilty in the manner and form as charged in the said Bill of Indictment and putteth himself upon the Country and the Circuit Attorney doth the like and thereupon came a Jury, to wit. Samuel F. Tilmon, P.C. Roberts, W.H. Paine, T.C. Gray, John H. Miller, James Raines, L.A.D. Crenshaw, Thomas Bridges, J.R. Roberts, Hugh Stewart, Peter C. King, Win. Breden,twelve good and lawful men duly elected qualified and sworn to well and truly try the issue joined in this cause upon their oath do say that the said Defendant is not guilty in the manner and form as alledged against him in said Bill of Indictment therefore the said Defendant from further answering the premises aforesaid be discharged and that he go thereof without day.

p 125.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance to Answer Charge of Petty Larceny
Addison Tennis Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf and suggests to the Court that the Grand Jury have not found a Bill of Indictment against the said Defendant but have recommended that the prosecutor be adjudged to pay costs and it appearing to the Court that said Defendant is in custody in the County Jail therefore it is ordered that said Addison Tennis from further answering the premises be discharged and that Williford Due, the Prosecutor in this case pay all the costs which have accrued in this cause and that an execution be issued for the same.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment For Felonious Assault
Hugh Stewart Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State of Missouri in this behalf and says by leave of the Court he will not further prosecute this Suit but
(continued)

34
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 125 (cont)
will suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State take nothing by her said Writ and that the Defendant be hereof discharged and go hence without day.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                            Indictment For Selling Whiskey Without License.
Thomas Moore Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes in this behalf for the State of Missouri as well as the Defendant and the motion heretofore filed to quash said Indictment coming up for hearing, and all and singular the premises being seen and by the Court fully understood it is considered by the Court that said motion be overruled. And therefore the Defendant being demanded of and concerning the premises and how he will acquit himself thereof who for a plea says he is not guilty in manner and form as charged in the said Indictment and putteth himself upon the Country and the Circuit Attorney doth the like, and thereupon comes a Jury, to wit: H.J. Cain, James Jones, A.J. Klepper, J.P. Alexander, Jabus R. Townsend, E.R. Fulbright, John Keeny and John H. Foster, twelve good and lawful men, duly elected qualified and sworn to well and truly try the issue joined in this cause upon their oath do say that they are unable to agree upon a verdict and by consent of parties were discharged.

p 126.
Now at this day comes into Court the Grand Jury empannelled on Monday morning and returned the following true bills of Indictment:

State of Missouri vs James Shehame Gaming
State of Missouri vs George W. Brollian Sabbath Breaking
State of Missouri vs Carrol Thomas Sabbath Breaking
State of Missouri vs William Webb Selling Spiritous Liquor Without License.

p 127/128.
Charles W. Huff et al Plaintiff
vs                                              Petition For Partition and Assignment of Dower
Susan Jane Holmes et al Defandants
Now at this day come the petitionees and show the Court here that Alpheus Huff died intestate about 4th day of July 1852, seized and possessed of the following real estate to wit: E 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Sect 5 containing 80 acres and E 1/2 of SE 1/4 Sect 32 containing 80 acres and SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sect 8 containing 40 acres and NE 1/4 of Sect 4 containing 166.7 acres and SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sect 3 containing 40.62 acres and NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 and E 1/2 of SE 1/4 Sect 5 containing 120 acres and NW 1/4 Sect 4 containing 168.80 acres Township 30 Range 20 W and SW 1/4 sect 35 containing 160 acres and E 1/2 of NE 1/4 Sect 33 containing 80 acres and SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sect 33 containing 40 acres in TWP 31 Range 20 W also NE 1/4 of Sect 8 TWP 31 Range 20 also NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 Sect 8 TWP 30 Range 20 W containing 40 acres and SW 1/4 of SE1/4 3/4 of Sect 32 TWP 31 Range 20 W containing 40 acres and Lot #1 NE fractional 1/4 of Sect 5 TWP 31 Range 20 containing 40 acres. Also NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sect 36 containing 40 acres and SE 1/4 Sect 25 Containing 40 acres TWP 32 Range 19 and E 1/2 of NW 1/4 Sect 13 TWP 32 Range 19 containing 80 acres and NE 1/4 of Sect 21 TWF 31 Range 19 containing 160 acres and SW 1/4 of E 1/2 of NW of Sect 22 TWP 31 Range 19 containing 160 acres and SW 1/4 and E 1/2 of NW of Sec 22 TWP 31 Range 19 containing 120 acres and that Charles W. Huff has been appointed Administrator of the estate so far as to ascertain that none of the above described real estate will be necessary for the purpose of administering said estate and it appearing to the Court that said Defendants had been duly notified by publication in the SPRINGFIELD ADVERTISER
(continued)

35
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 127/128 (cont)
a weekly newspaper printed in Springfield for eight weeks preceding the commencement of this Court and the said Defendants having failed to plead to the same said petition is taken as confessed and it further appearing to the Court that Sally Huff, widow and relof deceased is entitled to be endowed of one-third part of said real estate and that the heirs of Susan Jane Holmes per stirpes and William Huff, John Huff, Charles W. Huff, Francis M. Huff, George W. Huff, Sally Huff, Benjamin F. Huff and Nancy Huff, per capita, are each entitled to one individual ninth part of the remainder of said real estate and that said decedent in his lifetime gave, by way of advancement to Susan J. Holmes, daughter of said decedent, the NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sect 8 TWP 30 Range 20 to John Huff NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sect 33, TWP 30 Range 20 and SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Sect 28 and SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sect 33 TWP 31 Range 20, and that he had given but had not completed title for same to William Huff theE 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Sect 6 TWP 30 Range 20 and to Charles W. Huff the NE 1/4 of Sect 8 and SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sect 5 TWP 30 Range 20 the same being unimproved. It is therefore ordered and adjudged by this Court that said Sally Huff, widow of said deceased be endowed of one third part of said real estate and that heirs of said Susan J. Holmes per stirpes, and John Huff, William Huff, Charles W. Huff , Francis M. Huff, George W. Huff, Sally Huff, Benjamin F. Huff and Nancy Huff, per capita, have one ninth part each of the remaining said real estate, after deducting said Sally Huff's third of said real estate, after deducting said Sally Huff's third of said real estate. And it is hereby further ordered by said Court that John L. McCraw, John L. McCracken and Hope H. Skeire be and they are hereby appointed commissioners to make partition of the above described real estate in kind, among the heirs of said deceased according to their several rights bereinbefore set forth and ascertained. And it is further considered and adjudged that in their partition of said lands they be and are hereby instructed to take into consideration the lands given as aforesaid at their unimproved value giving to the said John Huff, William Huff and Charles W. Huff the said lands above set apart to them as part of their distributive share, and that said commissioners make report thereof. And it is further ordered by the Court that the said commissioners be instructed to assign to said Sally Huff aforesaid for her Dower the same lands heretofore assigned to her bycommissioners joined to make a correct report.

p 129.
George Watson Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
Joseph Lee Defendant
Now at this day comes the parties by their attorneys and having announced themselves ready for trial thereupon comes a Jury, to wit: Hosea Mullins, Edward Moore, Elijah Gray, Randolph Moore, C.B. Holland, Joshua M. Bailey, J.R. Roberts, Thomas Ellison, Woodson Thomas, Allen Mitchell, Jackson Cane, twelve good and lawful men duly elected tried and sworn to well and truly try this issue joined in this cause upon their oath do say that they cannot agree upon a verdict and by consent of parties were discharged.

p 130.
On the application of the Circuit Attorney, and for good cause shown, it is considered by the Court that William Harwood be discharged from further service as a member of the Grand Jury now in session.

36
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854.

p 130.
Pleasant Gordon Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
Lewis A. S. Crenshaw Defendant
This day comes the parties by their attorneys and the Defendant presents his petition, verified by affidavit as the Law directs praying that a Change of Venue may be awarded him for the reason that the minds of the people of this County are prejudiced against him and that he cannot have a fair trial of said cause in this County. It is therefore considered by the Court that a Change of Venue be awarded to the said Defendant to the County of Taney in this Judicial Circuit and that he pay all costs expended by reason of said Change for which execution may issue.

p 131.
The Grand Jury again returned into Court with the following Indictments - to wit:

John Wilkerson and James Shehane Gaming True Bill
Williford Due -- Gaming -- True Bill
William Kissee -- Gaming --True Bill
Arthur Kissee -- Gaming -- True Bill
Jackson Kessenger -- Gaming --True Bill
Williford Due, et al -- Gaming --True Bill
Harman Yearry -- Gaming -- True Bill
Phillip Martin -- Gaming -- True Bill
William Webb -- Gaming -- True Bill

p 132.
Isham Shoate Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
Newlan A. Davis Defendant
Now at this day comes the parties by their attorneys and having announced themselves ready for trial thereupon came a Jury to wit: Zachariah Sims, Thomas Overstreet, Washington Triss, Alexander Horn, J.H. Ragsdale, J.W.D.L.F. Mack, J.E. Smith, John H. Price, James Lee, A.C. Rainey, Washington Merritt, Washington B. Anderson, twelve good and lawful men duly elected tried and sworn to well and truly try the issue j oined in this cause, and after hearing a portion of the evidence and n0t having time to complete the same were permitted to disperse under the rule of the Court.

p 133 - nil.

p 134.
Isham Shoate Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
Newlan Davis Defendant
This day came again the parties by their attorneys and the evidence having been completed and the arguments of the attorneys having been heard the Jury retired to consider of their verdict, do upon their oath present the following as their verdict "We the Jury find for the Defendant". It is therefore considered by the Ccurt that the Plaintiff take nothing by the said Writ and that the Defendant have and recover of and from the said Plaintiff his costs and charges herein expended for all of which execution may issue.

37
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 135.
John Weaver Plaintiff
vs                                                  
Caleb Horn Defendant
Now at this day comes the parties by their respective attorneys and having announced themselves ready for trial thereupon comes a Jury, viz: Elam T. Gott, John R. Earnest, W.A. Bagley, H.J. Cain, R.B. Coleman, R.H. Williams, Shadrack Dickens, W.H. Frazier, W.J. Cannefax, R.B. Owens, Joshua M. Bailey, A.M. Ingram, twelve good and lawful men duly elected tried and sworn to well and truly try the issue joined in this cause. After hearing the evidence and arguments of the Counsel and retiring to consider of their verdicts do upon their oath say that they cannot agree upon a verdict, and by consent of parties were discharged.

p 136.
John Weaver Plaintiff
vs                                                   Attachment
Caleb Horn Defendant
Now at this day comes the parties by their respective attorneys and having announced themselves ready for trial thereupon comes a Jury, viz: William F. Williams, David D. Martin, John Booker, Benj. F. Butler, William Hunt, John C. Bigbee, Joseph Brown, Bennett Fox, Bennett Cook, James M. Johnson, James H. Fagg and Z. Young, twelve good and lawful inen duly elected tried and sworn to well and truly try the issue joined in this cause. After hearing the evidence and arguments of the Counsel and retiring to consider of their verdicts do upon their oath say that they cannot agree upon a verdict , and by consent of parties were discharged.

James N.B. Dodson and Sidney R. Roberts
by the name of Dodson and Roberts
vs                                                  
John Debruin
This day comes the Plaintiff by attorney, John S. Waddill, who produced in Court a statement bv John Debruin together with two notes, making part of said Statement, which was sworn to by said John Debruin together with authority in writing to take Judgment and the said John Debruin in his own proper person who confesses Judgment to owe said Plaintiffs for their debt the sum of five thousand dollars and for their damages seventy nine dollars, wherefore it is considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said Defendant the sum of five thousand and seventy nine dollars together with costs for all of which execution may issue.

p 137.
N.B. Morrow Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
Thomas Frazier Defendant
This day comes the Plaintiff in this cause by his attorney and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that the Defendant had been served with process, and having failed to answer and being three times solemnly called, comes not, and the demand being founded on an instrument of writing and the amount ascertained thereby, the said cause was submitted to the Court and the Court finds from said Instrument that the said Defendant owes and stands justly indebted to the said Plaintiff in the sum of two hundred and ninety six dollars and fifty cents for his debt and sixty nine dollars and sixteen cents for his damages for the detention thereof. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said
(Continued)

38
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 137 (cont)
Defendant the aforesaid debt and damages together with their costs and charges in this behalf expended for all of which execution may issue.

p 138
Thomas Potter
to                                                   Deed
Thomas Bridges
This day comes Thomas Potter who is known to the Court to be the identical same person whose name appears to an instrument of writing purporting to be a Sheriff's Deed and who is known to the Court to be the Sheriff of Greene County and acknowledged the same to be his act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

Thomas Potter
to                                                   Deed
Leonidas Campbell
This day comes Thomas Potter who is known to the Court to be the identical Same person whose name appears to an instrument of writing purporting to be a Sheriff's Deed and who is known to the Court to be the Sheriff of Greene County and acknowledged the same to be his act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

Thomas Potter
vs                                                   Deed
Littleberry Hendrick
This day comes Thomas Potter who is known to the Court to be the identical same person whose name appears to an instrument of writing purporting to be a Sheriff's Deed and who is known to the Court to be the Sheriff of Greene County and acknowledged the same to be his act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

p 139.
Benjamin C. Harden et al
Petition for partition
Now at this day comes into Court here the petitioners, to wit: Lucinda CoIdwell, Alfred Terrill, James Killion and Elizabeth his wife by William C. Price, their attorney, and Edmund Terrill, John Terrill, Polly J. Terrill and Nancy Terrill by James Foldon their guardian and Jefferson Terrill by Sterling Gilmore his guardian and Benjamin C. Harden in his own proper person and file herein their petition by writ it appears that William Terrill late of Greene County, Missouri, deceased, heretofore intestate seized in fee of the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Sect No. 23 and E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect No. 22 and NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sect No. 22, also the W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect No. 20 all of Township 30 of Range 23 containing 280 acres and that the said decedent left the above named Lucinda, his widow, and also Alfred Terrill, Elizabeth Terrill, since intermarried with one James Killion, Edward Terrill, John Terrill, Jefferson Terrill, Polly Terrill and Nancy Terrill as heirs and distributees of the estate of said decedent, and it further appears that said Lucinda had conveyed to said Benjamin C. Harden and the above named heirs and distributees her intereSt in the estate of said decedent upon the payment to said Lucinda of the sum of $257.50 which is still due to Lucinda and it further appearing to said Court that said Alfred and James Killion and Elizabeth his wife sold and conveyed to said Benjamin their undivided interest in the said real estate above described the same being two seventh part thereof, and that the said Edward, John, Polly, Nancy and Jefferson are each entitled to one-seventh part thereof, and it further appearing to the Court that said Property cannot be divided in kind
(continued)

39
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 139. (cont)
without great injury to the parties interested and all and singular the premises being by the Court seen and fully understood it is ordered adjudged and decreed by the Court here that said Lucinda have and recover against said land the sum of $257.50 the sum so due to her and that said premises be sold for the purpose of partition in the manner the Law directs and that after paying the said Lucinda her said Judgment and the costs of this proceeding the residue of the proceeds of said sale be divided as follows, to wit: to Edward Terrill, John Terrill, Polly Terrill, Nancy Terrill and Jefferson Terrill, each one-seventh part, to Benjamin C. Harden two-seventh parts, the shares of said minors to be paid to their respective guardians.

p 139,140,141.
Louisiana Haden and others, heirs and Legal representatives of Joseph
Weaver, deceased, and his widow, M.E. Weaver
Petition for partition-
Now at this day coffles the petitioners, Joseph W. Farrier by his guardian Joseph Farrier, J.J. Weaver, E.L. Weaver by his guardian J.J. Weaver, Mary F. Weaver by her guardian J.J. Weaver, Josephine Weaver by her guardian J.J. Weaver, Ann E. Weaver by her guardian J.J. Weaver, Ripley B. Weaver, Thomas J. Weaver by his guardian Ripley B. Weaver, Felix B. Weaver by his guardian R.B. Weaver, Emelette Fulbright wife of D.N. Fulbright, W.E. Weaver, Judith E. Weaver by her guardian M.F. Weaver, C.A. Haden and Louisiana Haden his wife, and present their mutual petition to the Court representing that the said children and grandchild of said Joseph Weaver, deceased, are equally entitled to the child's part each of the real estate of which said decedent died seized in coparunary and said widow is entitled to one-third thereof during her natural life, which real estate is the following, to wit: the NW 1/4 of Sect 14 the NW1/4 3/4 of Sect 15, the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sect 3 the SE 1/4 of Sect 9. The NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sect 10. The W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sect 10. The SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 4. The W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 11 all in Township 29 of Range 22. Also, the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Sect 3. The NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sect 11. The SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sect 3. The NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sect 10. The SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sect 3. The SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sect 3. The E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Sect 10 all in Township 27 of Range 21. Also the W 1/2 of Lot No. 23 in Block No. 5 in the town of Springfield, Greene County, and state of Missouri. Also an undivided interest in the following land in Taney County, Missouri, viz: Lot No. 4 NE Fractional 1/4 of Sect 3 Township 22 Range 21. Lots No. 3 & 2 SE fractional 1/4 of Sect 2 Township 22 Range 21. And also representing that it is the wish and desire of said Widow and also of all the said children and grandchild of said decedent, that said widow take a child's part of said real estate absolutely instead of the
third during her life. All said petitioners deeming it advantageous to them that it should be so divided, that is to say, for said children, said grandchild and said widow to share and share alike in said real estate and also representing that it is manifest that a division of said real estate cannot be made amongst said petitioners without great injury to the owners thereof, and praying that the same may be sold for the purpose of partition and the proceeds thereof equally divided amongst the owners to share and share alike. And all and singular the premises being seen and by the Court being fully understood, it appears to the Court that said children and grandchild except said widow are equally entitled to the said real estate in coparunary, as the heirs and lineal descendants of the said decedent and that said widow is entitled to one-third thereof during her natural life. And it further appearing to the Court here that it will be to the advantage of all said owners that said widow take a share equally with said children and grandchild, in lieu of her said dower, and she
(continued)

40
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 139,140,141 (cont)
having petitioned therefor and declared her wish to have a child's part thereof instead of her dower and relinquishes all right to said dower here in Open Court as appears by said petition. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that partition be made of all said real estate situated in Greene County equally between said owners and widow, share and share alike. It further appearing, by the petition of said petitioners, that said real estate cannot be divided without great prejudice to the owners. It is further ordered by the Court that the Sheriff of said County of Greene sell said real estate situated in Greene County to the highest bidder, and that the proceeds of said sale be equally divided between said owners and widow.

p 141.
Benjamin Potter and Sally Potter his wife,
Sowell Adams, Andrew J. Nichols and Nancy A. Nichols his wife,
Caswell S. Williams and Martha Williams his wife,
Regin McMine and Susannah McMine his wife,
John W. Adams, Mattie J. Martin by her guardian Andrew J. Nichols,
Bently Martin infant by his guardian Andrew J. Nichols,
James Stanphill and Francis Stanphill his wife Plaintiffs
against                                                  
Thadius Sharpenstein and Jane M. Adams executors of John Adams, Deceased,
Mary J. Adams minor, Nelson F. Adams minor,
Julian T. Adams minor, Henderson Dingles and Sally Dingles his wife,
John Adams minor, Rhoda Adams minor, Anthony Adams minor
and Benjamin Adams Defendants
Now at this day comes into Court the said Plaintiffs in this cause, by their attorneys and it appearing to the Court that Henderson Dingles and Sally Dingles his wife, John Adams minor, Rhoda J. Adams minor, Anthony Adams minor, Solomon Adams minor and Benjamin Adams minor, Defendants in the above cause are non-residents of the State of Missouri. It is therefore ordered by the Court that said Defendants be notified that a Suit by petition has been commenced in the Circuit Court of the County of Greene, contesting the validity of the supposed will of John Adams, deceased, alledging in said petition that said will was made whilst the said John Adams was of unsound mind and incompetent to make a will, and that unless said Defendants be and appear at the Court House in the town of Springfield on the third Monday in July A.D. 1854 within the first six days of said term, if it should so long continue, and if not before the end of said term, demur or answer said petition, the same will be taken as confessed and judgment will be rendered against said non-residents and it is further ordered that a copy of this order be published in the SPRINGFIELD ADVERTISER, a newspaper printed in this State for eight weeks successively, the last insertion to be at least four weeks before the next term of said Court.

p 142.
Joseph D. Haden Plaintiff
vs                                                   Petition for Acknowledgment of Deed
Mary Jane Smith, Robert D. Smith, Finis M. Smith,
Minor heirs of Albert A. Smith Deceased Defendants
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff, by attorney and shows to the Court here that the Defendants are minors and thereupon the Court appointed P.H. Edwards their guardian to defend this Suit. And said Guardians, by their Guardians ad litim, come and file their answer whereby it appears that the facts stated in said petition are true, (continued)

41
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 142 (continued)
and the said cause was submitted to the Court without a Jury. And it appearing by said petition and answer that in the lifetime of Albert A. Smith, deceased, the father of Defendants, he had made and delivered to Plaintiff a Deed of Conveyance of the following tract of land situated in the county of Greene and State of Missouri, that is to say - the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sect 17 Township 29 of range 20. That said deceased failed to acknowledge the same as the Law requires in order to be recorded in his life - that Defendants are the heirs of said deceased, and inherited said land, and it also appears to the Court here that said Defendants ought to acknowledge the same and n0t doing so. It is considered, adjudged and decreed by the Court here that said Deed of Conveyance be and the same is the Deed of Conveyance made executed and delivered by said Albert A. Smith on the 18th day of October 1852 to said Plaintiff, Joseph D. Haden as his act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned. And it is further considered that all claim of said Defendants be quieted and silenced forever, it is also considered by the Court that Plaintiff recover his costs for which execution may issue.

Ordered by the Court that all causes and motions not otherwise disposed of shall be continued until the next term of this Court in course. Court adjourned until new Court in course.

p 143.
April 18, 1854 - in Vacation.

State of Missouri, County of Greene.

Before the Clerk of the Circuit of Greene County appeared Henry Amphlet, a native of England, aged thirty three years who being duly sworn, upon his oath, declares that it is bona fide his intention to become a Citizen of the United States and renounce forever all allegience and fidelity to every Foreign Power, Prince, State and Sovereignty whatsoever and particularly to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain of whom he is at present a subject.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 18th day of April A.D. 1854.
A.G. McCracken, Clerk Henry Amphlet
by W.H. Graves
In Vacation March 27, 1854

Samuel F. Rogers et al Plaintiffs
vs                                                   Petition For Partition
Thomas J. Rogers and Hozea M. Rogers Defendants
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and files herein their petition in the following described real estate lying and being in the County of Greene and State of Missouri, to wit: NE 1/4 of Sect 24 Township 31 Range 21 and E 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Sect 14 Township 31 Range 21 NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 Sect 14 Township 31 Range 21. W 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Sect 13 Township 31 Range 21making in all 360 acres. And it appearing from the petition of said Plaintiffs verified by affidavit, that all the Defendants are non-residents of the State of Missouri. It is therefore ordered that the Defendants be notified of the filing of said petition, the object of which is to procure a Decree of said Court for division of said land among the parties aforesaid f or the sale thereof if division cannot be made in kind without prejudice to the owners thereof. And unless they be and appear at the next term of said Court to be begun and held at the Court House in the town of Springfield in Greene County, Missouri, on the third Monday in July A.D. 1854 and
(continued)

42
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854

p 143 (continued)
on or before the sixth day of said term, answer or plead to said petition, the same will be taken as confessed. It is therefore ordered that a copy of this order be published in the SPRINGFIELD ADVERTISER according to Law.

p 143, 144.
In Vacation June 10, 1854

William H. Anderson, as guardian Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action. Judgment.
Archibald W. Maupin Defendant
Now at this day was handed to me by Archibald W. Maupin for P.H. Edwards attorney for the Plaintiff in the above entitled cause, a statement made in writing by Archibald W. Maupin, the Defendant, authorizing a Judgment to be rendered against him, in vacation, in favor of William H. Anderson, as guardian for the sum of $155, being the balance of a note due and payable by said Maupin to said Anderson on the first day of January 1853 with interest from the time of said note was due at the rate of 6% per annum also for the sum of $200 with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the first day of January 1853. And the Clerk of said Court in vacation having seen and fully understood the premises, and said statement having been verified by the affidavit of said Defendants and the said Clerk being satisfied that the said Defendant executed said statement in writing and made the affidavit thereto. It is ordered and adjudged by said Clerk here in Vacation that said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said Defendant the sum of $355 being the full amount of principal of the aforesaid notes and also the sum of $40.10 the amount of interest due on both the aforesaid notes up to this date as well as his costs herein expended for all of which execution may issue. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Judgment in all things be affirmed and made final, and that such execution issue as aforesaid.

p 144/145.
Robert J. McElhaney and Clement Jaffard
Merchants Trading Under the Firm and
Style of McElhaney and Jaffard Plaintiffs
vs                                                   Judgment
Archibald W. Maupin and John B. Perkins a Firm
Trading and Doing Business Under the Style
Of Maupin and Perkins Defendants
Now at this day was handed to me by Archibald W. Maupin and John B. Perkins for P.H. Edwards, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above cause, a statement made in writing by Archibald W. Maupin and John B. Perkins the Defendants, authorizing a Judgment to be rendered against them, in Vacation, in favor of said Robert J. McElhaney and Clement Jaffard who do business as merchants under the name and style of McElhaney and Jaffard for the sum of $230.87 and the Clerk of said Court in Vacation having seen and fully understood the premises, and said statement having been verified by the affidavit of said Defendants, and the said Clerk being satsfied that the said Defendants executed said statement in writing and made the affidavits thereto. It is ordered and adjudged by said Clerk here in Vacation that said Plaintiffs have and recover of and from the said Defendants the sum of $230.87, the amunt due and unpaid, as well as his costs herein expended for all of which execution may issue. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Judgment in all things be affirmed and made final and that such execution issue aforesaid.

43
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

Book D.
JANUARY TERM 1854
June in Vacation.

p 145.
William H. Anderson Plaintiff
vs                                                   Judgment
Archibald W. Maupin and John B. Perkins Defendants
A Firm Trading and Doing Business Under
The Style of Maupin and Perkins
Now at this day was handed to me by Archibald W. Maupin and John B. Perkins for P.H. Edwards attorney for the Plaintiff in the above cause a statement made in writing signed by Archibald W. Maupin and John B. Perkins the Defendants authorizing a Judgment to be rendered against them in Vacation in favor of said William H. Anderson as guardian, for $230.95. And the Clerk of the Court in Vacation having seen and fully understood the premises and the said statement having been verified by affidavit of said Defendants and the said Clerk being satisfied that said Defendants executed said statement in writing and made the affidavits thereto. It is ordered and adjudged by said Court here in Vacation that said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said Defendants, the sum of $230.95 the amount yet owed and unpaid as well as his costs therein expended for all of which execution may issue. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Judgment in all things be affirmed and made final, and that such execution issue as aforesaid.

44

Table of Contents