Abstract of Circuit Court Record Books January - July 1866

GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

 

In Vacation
Book G

July 16 1866
p 673/674.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance
Charles Hoenick Defendat
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and also the Defendant by his attorney and in person, and William Hackworth as his security who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of $500 to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements to be void on condition that the said Charles Hoenick who is indicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County for Grand Larceny makes his appearance from day to day at the present Term of said Court and answer to said Bill of Indictment and not depart said Court without leave.

p 674.
William W. Langston Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
J.P.C. Langston et al Defendants
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff by attorney in the above entitled cause and on application of the Plaintiff it is ordered by the Court that T.A. Sherwood be appointed guardian ad litem for the minor heirs, defendants in this cause.

Ordered that Court adjourn until tomorrow morning nine o'clock. R.W. Fyan Cir Judge
Tuesday, July 17th, 1866.

Court met persuant to adjournment. Present as on yesterday

Ordered by the Court that A.C. Wallace be permitted to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment
Nathan Gray & William Watson Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and also the Defendants in person and by attorney and this cause being called the Defendants for a plea say they are guilty in manner and form as charged in the Bill of Indictment. Whereupon the Court doth find the prisoners guilty of the offense charged and doth assess as a punishment on said Defendants Nathan Gray and William Watson for the commission of the offense a fine of one dollar each. It is further considered and adjudged
by the Court that the said Defendants remain in custody of the Sheriff until the fine and costs are fully paid and that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from the said Defendants her said fine and costs herein laid out and expended and that she have an execution for the same.

p 675.
Answers filed:
James Simpson vs S. Anderson and James Ellison
William F. Steel vs Joseph D. Sharp

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment
A.J. Smith Defendant
Now at this day it is ordered by the Court that the Sheriff bring the body of A.J. Smith a prisoner confined in the Jail of Greene County into Court.

124
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM lS66
p 675.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment
Nathan Andrews Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and on his application this cause is continued until the next Term of this Court and a pluris sciri facias ordered to issue against the Defendants returnable to the next Term of this Court.

D.C. Gaibraith et al
vs
M.M. Neaves et al
Now at this day comes John L. McCraw by his attorney and files his motion asking to be made a co-Defendant in the above entitled cause.

Thomas Dodds Plaintiff
vs                                                   Dismissed at Plaintiff's Cost
T.J. Wallace Defendant
Now at this day this cause called and the Plaintiff failing to prosecute the same said cause is dismissed at the costs of Plaintiff and leave given Plaintiff to withdraw the original suit by leaving a certified copy of the same with the Clerk of this Court and it is considered by the Court that the Defendant recover his costs in this behalf laid out and expended and that he have an execution for the same.

p 676.
Answer filed:
D.M. Sewell adm vs William Jameson et al
Thomas H. Paul admin vs Joseph George
Eugene Fribourg vs Klutz and Pollock et al
Eugene Fribourg vs Klutz and et al
A. Cohen vs Klutz and et al
Eugene Fribourg vs Klutz and Pollock et al
Martha Baxter vs Charles M. McClure et al

p677.
Asa Lyman vs J.C. Thompson et al -- motion to Quash execution
J.F. Hardin et al vs Eli G. Parris -- Answer filed

Now at this day it is ordered by the Court that the time of pleading on all cases of Bills, Bonds and Notes be extended until Saturday morning next at 12 o'clock.

Martha Baxter Plaintiff
vs                                                   Leave to Amend Petition
Charles McClure et al Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff in the above entitled cause by his attorney and on his application leave is given Plaintiff to amend the Petition in this cause by inserting the word administratrix in the title of this cause.

Answer filed:
N.A.H. Murphy vs William P. Dabbs
Alsa Oneal vs Samuel Campbell
S.P. Fielder vs M. Neaves et al

125
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM l866
p 678.
Answer filed:
Orville Lyons vs Nick Morgan
George Cutberth vs John Sullivan
Yancy B. Warren vs James Danforth
C.S. Hoffman vs John Rose
C.S. Hoffman vs Jobe Rose
C.S. Hoffman vs Jobe Rose

p 679. July 17th 1866.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance
W.J.R. Lee Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and also the Defendant and R.P. Dillinger and M.J. Phillips, who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of one hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements to be void on condition that the said W.R. Lee who is Indicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County shall be and appear from day to day and answer to said Indictment at the present term of this Court and not depart said Court without leave.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance
W.R. Lee Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and also the Defendant and R.P. Dillinger and M.J. Phillips, who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of one hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements to be void on condition that the said W.R. Lee who is Indicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County shall be and appear from day to day and answer to said Indictment at the present term of this Court and not depart said Court without leave.

p 679/680.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance
W.R. Lee Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and also the Defendant and R.P. Dillinger and M.J. Phillips, who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of one hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to be void on condition that the said J.R. Lee who stands indicted for running horse in Public Highway shall be and make his personal appearance at the present term of this Court from day to day and answer said Bill of Indictment and not depart the same without leave.

p 680.
Aaron Parker Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
James M. Thompson Defendant
Now at this day comes this cause on to be called and it appearing that the Judge of this Court has been of Counsel in the cause and it is ordered that a Change of Venue be awarded to the Probate and Common Pleas Court of Greene County and that the Clerk of this Court certify the record and original papers to said Court as the Law directs.

126
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
17 July 1866.
p 680.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #1. Grand Larceny
A.J. Smith Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant in person and by attorney and by leave of Court files his affidavit and application for a Change of Venue in this cause on account of the prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of Greene County against him whereupon it is ordered by the Court that a Change of Venue be awarded to the County of Dallas and that the Clerk of this Court certify the record and original papers in this cause to the Circuit Court of Dallas County.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #2. Grand Larceny
A.J. Smith Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant in person and by attorney and by leave of Court files his affidavit and application for a Change of Venue in this cause on account of the prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of Greene County against him whereupon it is ordered by the Court that a Change of Venue be awarded to the County of Dallas and that the Clerk of this Court certify the record and original papers in this cause to the Circuit Court of Dallas County.

p 680/681.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #3. Grand Larceny
A.J. Smith Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant in person and by attorney and by leave of Court files his affidavit and application for a Change of Venue in this cause on account of the prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of Greene County against him whereupon it is ordered by the Court that a Change of Venue be awarded to the County of Dallas and that the Clerk of this Court certify the record and original papers in this cause to the Circuit Court of Dallas County.

p 681.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #4. Grand Larceny
A.J. Smith Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant in person and by attorney and by leave of Court files his affidavit and application for a Change of Venue in this cause on account of the prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of Greene County against him whereupon it is ordered by the Court that a Change of Venue be awarded to the County of Dallas and that the Clerk of this Court certify the record and original papers in this cause to the Circuit Court of Dallas County.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Failing to Repair Highway.
William Robertson Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by his attorney and for a plea says he is guilty as he is charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is therefore considered by the Court that he be fined in the sum of ten dollars for the offense and it is considered and adjudged by the Court that the State have and recover of and from Defendanther said fine of ten dollars and also his costs and that she have execution therefor.

127
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 681.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Robbery
M. Hughes Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant in person and by attorney and by leave of Court files his affidavit and application for a Change of Venue in this cause on account of prejudice in the mind of the Judge of this Court. It is therefore ordered that a Change of Venue be granted to the Circuit Court of Barry County in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit and that the Clerk of this Court certify the record and original papers in this cause to said Court.

p 682.
E.J. Robberson Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action on Partition
Jasper Robberson Defendant
Now at this day it appearing to the Court that there are two minor heirs who reside in the State of California who are entitled to a distribution shown in the proceeds of the sale of real estate for partition in the above entitled cause. It is therefore ordered by the Court that T.A. Sherwood, guardian ad litem for the said minors receive the said distributive shares of said minors that he enter into bond in the sum of six hundred dollars to each of said heirs that he loan the estate of said minors for twelve months on the real estate surety at two percent and that he be allowed the sum of $37.50 out of each of said minors distributive shares for his service in this behalf.

p 683.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment for Murder
N.H. Choate Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by attorney and it appearing that Amaziah Long had been duly recognized as a witness on part of the Defendant and had failed to appear when called and it is ordered that an attachment issue for said Long returnable instanter.

M. Baxter vs Charles McClure et al -- Defendant files answer
Mercer Moody vs W.H. Bufden -- Leave granted to answer by next term of Court.
State of Missouri vs John Kelly and James Hays -- Motion by Defendants to Quash.
State of Missouri vs James Swift -- Motion to Quash
State of Missouri vs Robert Dillinger -- Motion to Quash.

p 684.
State of Missouri vs James Hayes -- Motion to Quash
State of Missouri vs William R. Lee -- Motion to Quash
State of Missouri vs William R. Lee & John Claibourne -- Motion to Quash
State of Missouri vs William Hood & William R. Lee -- Motion to Quash
State of Missouri vs Orville Lyon -- Files plea in Indictment.
Ordered that Court adjourn until tomorrow 9 o'clock. R.W. Fyan Cir Judge

p 685. July 18th Wednesday,
Court met persuant to adjournment. Present as on yesterday.

Motions
Eugene Fribourg vs Klotz & et al -- Motion strike out Petition of Plaintiff.
J.H. Elam vs W.F. McFall et al S.H. Julian, -- Defendant, files separate answer
Tapley Davis vs John A. Patterson & R.&. Banfield -- Defendants file their answer

128
GREENE COUNTY MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866.
p. 685.
Thomas Gordon vs William White -- Cause continued
State of Missouri vs Robert Young --State files interrogations this cause to Joseph R. Douglas, Garnishee.
Thomas Gordon vs William White -- Defendant files motion to rule Plaintiff Security for costs.

p 686.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by his attorney and by leave of Court files his affidavit for a continuance in this cause.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #1. Recognizance
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecuteson behalf of the State and J.M. Grantham who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels, land and tenements to be void on condition that the said J.M. Grantham shall make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County at the January Term of the Greene County Circuit Court on the first day of said Term of said Court which will be begun and holden on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and then and there testify on the part of the State in the above entitled cause and not depart said Court without leave.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #2. Reccgnizance
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and J.M. Grantham who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted tc the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels, land and tenements to be void on condition that the said J.M. Grantham shall make his personal appearance be fore the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County at the January Term of the Greene County Circuit Court on the first day of said Tern of said Court which will be begun and holden on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and then and there testify on the part of the State in the above entitled cause and not depart said Court without leave.

p 687.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #3. Recognizance
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and J.M. Grantham who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels, land and tenements to be void on condition that the said J.M. Grantham shall make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County at the January Term of the Greene County Circuit Court on the first day of said Term of said Court which will be begun and holden on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and then and there testify on the part of the State in the above entitled cause and not depart said Court without leave.

129
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 687.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #4.Recognizance
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and J.M. Grantham who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels, land and tenements to be void on condition that the said J.M. Grantham shall make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County at the January Term of the Greene County Circuit Court on the first day of said Term of said Court which will be begun and holden on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and then and there testify on the part of the State in the above entitled cause and not depart said Court without leave.

p 687/688.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #1. Recognizance
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and John R. Earnest who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels, land and tenements to be void on condition that John R. Earnest shall make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County at the January Term of the Greene County Circuit Court on the first day of said Term of said Court which will be begun and bolden on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and then and there testify on the part of the State in the above entitled cause and not depart said Court without leave.

p 688.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #1. Recognizance Grand Larceny
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and also the Defendant and William A. Fly, John A. Show and Jeremiah N. Fly as his securities who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted unto the State of Missouri in the sum of five hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements to be void on condition that said Jasper Fly who is indicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, for Grand Larceny shall be and make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January Term thereof which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and answer to said Indictment and not depart said Court without leave.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #2. Recognizance Grand Larceny
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and also the Defendant and William A. Fly, John A. Show and Jeremiah N. Fly as his securities who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indicted unto the State of Missouri in the sum of five hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements to be void on condition that the said Jasper fly who is Indicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County Missouri for Land Larceny shall be and make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January Term thereof which
(cont)

130
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 688 (cont)
will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County on the third Monday in January A.D.and answer to said Indictment and not depart said Court without leave then this recognizance shall be void otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.

p 689.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #3. Recognizance Grand Larceny
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and also the Defendant and William A. Fly, John A. Show and Jeremiah N. Fly as his securities and acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted unto the State of Missouri in the sum of five hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements to be void cn condition that said Jasper Fly who is indicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, for Grand Larceny shall be and make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January Term thereof which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and answer to said Indictment and not depart said Court without leave.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #1. Recognizance Arson
Jasper Fly Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and also the Defendant and William A. Fly, John A. Show and Jeremiah N. Fly as his securities who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indicted unto the State of Missouri in the sum of eight hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements to be void on condition that the said Jasper Fly who is indicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County Missouri for Arson shall be and appear before the Judge of the Greene
Circuit Court at the January Term of said Court which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County on the third Monday in January 1867 and answer said Indictment and not depart said Court without leave.

John A. Abernathy Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
John A. & Berry F. Carter
and James L. McClure Defendants
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff by his attorney and by leave of Court dismisses this cause and leave is given Plaintiff to withdraw the original instrument sued on by leaving a certified copy of the same with the Clerk of this Court.

p 690.
Crow McCreary & Co
vs                                                   Civil Action
R.G. Abernathy & Co
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff in the above cause by his attorney and on his application this cause is dismissed and leave granted plaintiff to withdraw the original instrument sued on by leaving a certified copy of the same with the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

131
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 690.
Causes continued generally
State of Missouri vs Black & Spence -- No. 1
State of Missouri vs Black & Spence -- No. 2
State of Missouri vs Black & Spence -- No. 3
A. Cohen vs Klutz & et al -- interrogations filed to J.S. McQuerter, Hope Skeen, J.G. Aumoth Garnishees.
Eugene Fribourg vs Joseph Pollok et al -- Interrogations filed to James S. McQuerte and Hope Skeen Garnishees.

p 691
Samuel Piper Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
E.G. Collins Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff in the above cause by his attorney and on his application this cause is dismissed at Plaintiff's costs and leave given Plaintiff to withdraw instrument sued on by leaving a certified copy of the same with the Clerk of this Circuit Court.

C.S. & A.R. Yancy Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
Daniel Chandler Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiffs by attorney and by leave of Court answers this cause and it is considered by the Court that the Plaintiffs take nothing by this suit and that the Defendant his costs laid out and expended and that he have an execution therefor.

R.A.C. Mack Plaintiff
vs                                                   Partition Petition
Elisha Headlee, et al Defendants
Now at this day comes the parties by attorney and it is ordered that John A. Mack be appointed guardian ad litem for the minor Defendants in this cause.

James Ivans Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil Action
D.D. Berry, et al Defendants
Now at this day comes the Defendant, D.D. Berry by attorney and by leave files his application or motion to set aside the Interlocutory Judgment rendered in this cause.

p 692.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment for Murder
Alfred Bigby Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant in person and by attorney who being duly arraigned for a plea says he is not guilty as charged in the Bill of Indictment and of this puts himself on the Country and the Circuit Attorney doth the like whereupon came a Jury vis Jefferson Kinser, Martin Ingram, John Adams, R.P. Warner, Robert Pate, F.M. Shockley, W.F. Dunn, B. J. Long, 9 F. Evans, T.W. Ruffin, E.B. Hudson, T.R. Dcdson, twelve good and lawful men who being duly elected tried and sworn to try the issue joined having heard the evidence advised by instruction of the Court return into Court as follows "We the Jury find the Defendant not guilty in manner and form charged." It is therefore considered and adjudged by the
(continued)

132
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 692 (cont)
Court that the State take nothing by her said suit and that the Defendant be discharged hereof and go hence without day.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Grand Larceny
George W. Hodges Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant in person and by attorney and the said Defendant having been duly arraigned, for a plea says he is not guilty and of this puts himself on the Country and the Circuit Attorney doth the like whereupon came a Jury vis George Murrell, Jeff Kinser, James Vaughan, Marlin Ingram, P.J. Weis, Thomas Hagewood, W.P. Warner, Robert Pate, H.L. Grantham, Z. Roberts, F. Evans and F.E. Watterson, twelve good and lawful men who being duly elected tried and sworn as the Law directs on their oath say "We the Jury find the Defendant not guilty." It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the State take nothing by her said suit and that the Defendant be discharged hereof and go hence without day.

p 693.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment for Murder
G.W. Cooper Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant and by leave of Court files his application for a Change of Venue to some other County on account of the prejudice existing in the minds of the inhabitants of Greene County against him.

p 694. Motions:
C.W. Bodenhamer vs W.F. Bodenhamer et al -- Defendant files his answer.

D.C. Galbraith et al vs M.M. Neaves et al -- ordered by Court that J.S. McCrain be made party to Defendant.

A.S. Adams vs R.G. Abernathy -- Plaintiff leave withdraw instruments sued on.

Ordered that Court adjourn until tomorrow morning 8 o'clock. R.W. Fyan Cir. Judge.

p 695. July 19, 1866 Thursday.
Court met persuant adjournment. Present as on yesterday.

James S. McQuerter and Amanda his wife vs J.M. & Sarah Kelley Cause continued till next term of this Court.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance of Witnesses for State
Archibald Madden Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and Wil1iam Parks, Nancy G. Bridges and Susan Jones, witnesses for the State who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars each to be levied upon their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to be void upon condition that the said William Parks, Nancy Bridges and Susan Jones shall be and appear before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January term of said Court which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without Leave.

133
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 695.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance of State Witnesses
Henry Monger Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and William Parks, Nancy Bridges and Susan Jones who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars each to be levied upon their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to be void upon condition that the said William Parks, Nancy Bridges and Susan Jones shall be and appear before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January Term of said Court which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without leave.

p 696.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance of State Witnesses
Benjamin Felton Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and William Parks, Nancy G. Bridges and Susan Jones, witnesses for the State who acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars each to be levied upon their goods and cbattels, lands and tenements, to be void upon condition that the said William Parks, Nancy Bridges and Susan Jones shall be and appear before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January Term of said Court which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without leave.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance of State Witnesses
William Abbott Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and William Parks, Nancy G. Bridges and Susan Jones, witnesses for the State wbo acknowledge themselves to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars each to be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to be void upon condition that the said William Parks, Nancy Bridges and Susan Jones shall be and appear before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January Term of said Court which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without leave.

p 696/697.
State of MissouriPlaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance of State Witnesses
F.M. McDaniel Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and H. Dyke who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels, land and tenements to be void upon condition that the said H. Dyke shall be and appear before the Judge of the Circuit Court of Greene County at the January Term of said Court which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, on the third Monday in January A.D. 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without leave.

134
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 697.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #2 Recognizance of State Witness.
Thomas M. McDaniel Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and Hyronemous Dyke who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels lands and tenements to be void on condition that he shall make his appearance before the Judge of the Greene Circuit Court at the January Term thereof which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the City of Springfield in said County on the third Monday in January 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without leave.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   #1 Recognizance of Defendants Witness
F. McDaniel Defendant
Now at this day comes William George and acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels lands and tenements to be void on condition that he shall make his appearance before the Judge of the Greene Circuit Court at the January Term thereof which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County on the third Monday in January 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without leave.

p 697/698.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Recognizance Defendants Witness
F.M. McDaniel Defendant
Now at this day comes William George who acknowledges himself to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of fifty dollars to be levied of his goods and chattels lands and tenements to be void on condition that he shall make his appearance before the Judge of the Greene Circuit Court at the January Term thereof which will be begun and holden at the Court House in the city of Springfield in the County on the third Monday in January 1867 and testify in the above cause on the part of the State and not depart said Court without leave.

p 698.
Interrogations filed:
D.S. Pearce vs William Jackson, et al - James A. McCullah, garnishee
D.S. Pearce vs William Jackson, et al - Martha E. Skelton, garnishee

John R. Earnest Plaintiff
vs                                                   Civil action
William Porter Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff in the above cause by his attorney and by leave of Court says he will dismiss this cause at Plaintiff's costs. It is therefore considered by the Court that the same be dismissed and that the Defendant have and recover of and from the Plaintiff his costs of suitherein laid out and expended and that he have execution thereof.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   No. 107. Selling Liquor Without License
Richard Clark Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the
(continued)

135
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 698. (cont)
Defendant in person and by his attorney who for a plea says that he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that said Defendant be fined the sum of $20 for the commission of said offense. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from said Defendanther said fine of $20 and also her costs in this
behalf laid out and expended and that she have an execution thereof and that said Defendant be and remain in custody of the Sheriff until fine and costs are fully paid.

p 699.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   No. 104. Selling Liquor Without License
Richard Clark Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant in person and by his attorney who for a plea says that he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that said Defendant be fined the sum of $20 for the commission of said offense. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from said Defendanther said fine of $20 and also her costs in this behalf laid out and expended and that she have an execution thereof and that said Defendant be and remain in custody of the Sheriff until fine and costs are fully paid.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   No. 100. Selling Liquor Without License
Richard Clark Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant in person and by his attorney who for a plea says that he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that said Defendant be fined the sum of $20 for the commission of said offense. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from said Defendanther said fine of $20 and also her costs in this behalf laid out and expended and that she have an execution thereof and that said Defendant be and remain in custody of the Sheriff until fine and costs are fully paid.

p 699/700
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   No. 109.
Richard Clark Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant in person and by his attorney who for a plea says that he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that said Defendant be fined the sum of $20 for the commission of said offense. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri have and9 recover of and from said Defendanther said fine of $20 and also her costs in this behalf laid out and expended and that she have an execution thereof and that said Defendant be and remain in custody of the Sheriff until fine and costs are fully paid.

p 700.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Selling Liquor Without License
Joseph F. Oneal Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant in person and by his attorney and the cause coming on to be heard the Defendant
(continued)

136
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES

BOOK G
JULY TERM 1866
p 700 (cont)
for a plea says he is not guilty and the necessity of a Jury waived, this cause is submitted to the Court setting as a Jury doth find from an examination of the same and from the evidence adduced that the Defendant is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Indictment and assesses as a punishment a fine of $50 on Defendant for the commission of offense. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the Stateof Missouri have and recover of and from said Defendanther said fine of $50 and also her costs of suit in this behalf laid out and expended and that she have execution thereof and that the said Defendant remain in custody of the Sheriff until fine and costs are fully paid.

p 701.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   No. 106. Indictment
Thompson and Elliott Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendants by their attorney and this cause coming on to be heard the Defendants for a plea say they are not guilty as charged in the Indictment and having announced ready for trial and the necessity of a Jury being waived the cause is submitted to the Court and the Court setting as a Jury find from an examination of the evidence and the premises that said Defendants are guilty in manner and form charged in the Bill of Indictment and assess against said Defendants a fine of five dollars each for the commission of said offense. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from the Defendants her said fine of five dollars each together with her costs in this suit laid out and expended and that she have execution for the same which execution may issue against H.J. Lindenbower who agrees to stand security for the Defendants in this cause.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Motion for New Trial
Thompson and Elliott Defendants
Now at this day comes the Defendants in this cause by their attorney and by leave of Court files their motion for a New Trial in this cause.

State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs                                                   Indictment
Thompson & Elliott
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendants by their attorney and this coming on to be heard the Defendants for a plea say they are not guilty as charged in the Indictment and having announced ready for trial and neither party requiring a Jury this cause is submitted to the Court for trial and the Court setting as a Jury doth find from an examination of the same and from the evidence adduced that the Defendants are not guilty as charged in the Indictment. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the Defendants be discharged hereof and go hence without day and that the State of Missouri take nothing by her said suit and that the Defendants have and recover their costs in this suit of and from the State of Missouri and that a Fee Bill issue against the State of Missouri for the costs in this cause.

p 702.
Causes continued:
State of Missouri vs William H. Worrell -- No. 1. Selling Liquor Without License
State of Missouri vs William H. Worrell -- No. 2. Selling Liquor Without License
State of Missouri vs William H. Worrell -- No. 3. Selling Liquor Without License
State of Missouri vs William H. Worrell -- No. 4. Selling Liquor Without License

137

July Term Continued
Table of Contents