Springfield-Greene
County LibraryMay Term 1848
p 247.
At a regular term of the Circuit Court of the County of Greene began and held at the Court House in the city of Springfield in said County on Monday the 15th day of May A.D. 1848. Present the Honorable Charles S. Yancey Judge of said Court, John T. Coffee Esq. Circuit Attorney, William McFarland Sheriff and Joshua Davis Clerk and the following proceedings.Now at this day the Sheriff returns here into Court upon the veniri facias to him directed the following panel of Grand Jurors, to wit: Larkin Payne, foreman 1. Joshua M. Bailey 2. John W. Wadlow 3. William Stout 4. James Watts 5. Junius N. Rountree 6. Henry Wilson 7. Thomas Ellison 8. Jesse Grigsby 9. William Gray 10. Thomas Tilley 11. Jesse Hickman 12. James Harkness 13. Samuel Garoutte 14. Thomas J. Hodges 15. Benjamin S. Lane 16. Abner Dabb 17 who being duly empanelled sworn and charged as Grand Jurors for the County of Greene- retire to consider of their duties.
p 247/248.
James Rains Plaintiff
vs Trover
Lazarus Nichols Defendant
Now at this day come the parties aforesaid by their respective attorneys and consent that this cause be dismissed at the cost of the said Defendant. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff take no damages by his said suit and that he have and recover of and from the said Defendant his cost in this behalf expended.
48
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
Book C.
MAY TERM 1848
p 248.
Washington Matthews Plaintiff
vs Trespass
William Adamson et al Defendant
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiff by his attorney and by leave of the Circuit Court dismisses his suit as to Edward Adamson, one of the said Defendants. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff take nothing by his said suit as against the said Edward Adamson and that the said Edward Adamson have and recover of and from the said Plaintiff his costs and charges in this behalf expended.
p 249. Thesday Morning May 16th 1848
Crawford Crenshaw Plaintiff
vs Trespass
Franklin IB. Coleman Defendant
Now at this day comes the said -Plaintiff by his attorney and says that he will not further prosecute his suit but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff take nothing by his said suit and that the said Defendant have and recover of and from the said Plaintiff his costs in this behalf expended that execution issue therefor.
p 250.
Thomas G. Bagley Plaintiff
vs Petition in Debt
John Layton Defendant
Now at this day come the parties aforesaid by their respective attorneys and by consent of parties this cause is dismissed at the cost of the said Defendant. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff take no debt or damages by his said suit and that he have and recover of and from the said Defendant his costs in this behalf expended and that execution issue therefor.
Samuel Thompson Plaintiff
vs Trespass
Hezekiah S. Blankenship Defendant
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiff by his attorney and says that he will not further prosecute his said suit but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff take nothing by his said suit and that the said Defendant have and recover of and from the said Plaintiff his costs in this behalf expended and that execution issue therefor.
p 251.
Isaac Eubank and wife Plaintiffs
vs Slander
William Hay Defendant
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and say that they will not further prosecute said suit but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiffs take nothing by their said suit and that the said Defendant have and recover of and from the said Plaintiffs his costs in this behalf expended and that execution issue therefor.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Burglary
Lewis A. Whitsett Defendant
Now at this day comes as well the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf as the said Defendant in his own proper person and that said Defendant being inquired of how he will acquit himself of the charge by said State in said indictment
(continued)
49
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
Book C.
MAY TERM 1848
p 251 (continued)
alleged against him says he is not guilty in manner and form as charged in said indictment and of this he puts himself upon the County, etc., and the said Circuit Attorney doth the like and thereupon come a Jury, to wit: David T. Ralston 1. Joshua Horn 2. Joseph Headlee 3. Edmund Turner 4. Benjamin Shockley 5. John L. McCracken 6. Martin Ingram 7. Alvis A. Howard 8. William Phillips 9. John Robinson 10. David Headlee 11. Marcus Boyd 12, twelve good and lawful men who are duly elected tried and sworn well and truly to try the issue joined and a true verdict to render according to law and evidence. (Extended on p 255)
p 251/252. Wednesday Morning May 17th 1848
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Grand Larceny
Buter Teague Defendant
Now this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf and says that by leave of the Court he will not further prosecute said indictment but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said State take nothing by said Indictment and that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and go hence without day.
p 252.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Forgery No. 1
Bright Cole Defendant
Now at this day comes the said Defendant in his own proper person who presents to the Court his petition supported by his affidavit for a change of venue in this cause because the minds of the inhabitants of the County of Greene are so prejudiced against him that a fair trial cannot be had therein. It is therefore ordered by the Court that this cause be removed to the Circuit Court of Lawrence in the thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri. It is further ordered by the Court that the Sheriff of the County of Greene remove the body of the said Defendant to the jail of the County of Lawrence aforesaid and then deliver him to the keeper of said Jail together with the warrant or process by virtue of which he is imprisoned.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Forgery
Bright Cole Defendant
Now at this day comes Spencer Clark, John R. Jameson, William Graham, Thomas Potter, Abel Benton and John W. Hancock and acknowledged themselves to be respectively indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of $50 each to be levied of their respective goods and chattles lands and tenements to be void on this condition - that if the said Spencer Clark, John R. Jameson, William Graham, Thomas Potter, Abel Benton and John W. Hancock shall severally be and appear in the Circuit Court of the County of Lawrence at the Court House in the town of Mt. Vernon in said County of Lawrence on the third Monday of October A.D. 1848 to testify in this cause on the part of said State then this recognizance on the part of such of said cognizors as 50 shall appear to testify shall be void - otherwise to remain in full force.
p 253 - nil
P 254. Thursday Morning May 18th 1848
James H. Stewart Plaintiff
vs Appeal
Jesse A. Hill Defendant
Now at this day come the parties aforesaid by their respective attorneys and the motions by the said parties respectively heretofore filed being seen and fully understood
(continued)
50
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
Book C.
MAY TERM 1848
p 254 (continued)
by the Court. It is considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff's motion to dismiss said cause be sustained - it is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff take nothing by his said suit and that the said Defendant have and recover of and from the said Plaintiff his costs in this behalf laid out and expended and that execution issue therefor.
p 254.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Gaming
William Martin & Joe Case Defendants
Now at this day it appearing to the Court that John Cox has been arrested and given recognizance in this cause instead of the said John Case by mistake. It is therefore ordered by the Court that the said John Cox be discharged from said recognizance and that he go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Selling Liquor Without License
E.S. White Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf and says that by leave of the Court he will not further prosecute said indictment but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed - It is therefore considered by the Court that the said State take nothing by said indictment and that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and that he go hence without day.
p 255.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Burglary
Lewis A. Whitsett Defendant
Now at this day comes as well the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf as the said Defendant in his own proper person and thereupon came a-Jury heretofore empanelled in this cause and upon their oaths do say that the said Defendant is not guilty in manner and form as charged in aid indictment. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said State take nothing by said indictment and that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and go hence without day.
p 256. Friday Morning May 19th 1848
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Selling Liquor without License
William H. Frazier Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf and says that by leave of the Court he will not further prosecute said indictment but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said State take nothing by said indictment and that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and that he go hence without day.
p 257.
Now at this day comes William McFarland Sheriff of the County of Greene and acknowledges a certain deed of this date executed by him to one Kindred Rose conveying to the said Rose certain lands in said deed mentioned, to wit: the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sect No. 28 and the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Sect No. 21 in T'ownship No. 29 of Range No. 22 W to be his act and deed for the purpose therein mentioned.
51
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
Book C.
MAY TERM 1848
p 257.
Now at this day comes William McFarland Sheriff of the County of Greene and acknowledges a certain Deed of this date executed by him to one Addison Pursely conveying to the said Pursely certain lands in said Deed mentioned, to wit: a part of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sect No. 25 in Township No. 29 of Range No. 21 to be his act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned.
James H. Stewart Plaintiff
vs Appeal
Jesse A. Hill Defendant
Now at this day come the parties aforesaid by their respective attorneys and the motion of the said Plaintiff to set aside the order of this Court made on yesterday dismissing this cause and to reinstate this cause being seen and fully understood by the Court it is by the Court sustained and said order is set aside and this cause reinstated, to which opinion the Court in sustaining said motion the defendant excepted.
J. & P. Scott Plaintiffs
vs Petition in Debt
John Dixon Defendant
Now at this day comes the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and it appearing to the Court that the said Defendant has been duly served with Process and that he has failed to plead in this action whereby this action remains undefunded. It is considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said Defendant their debt damages and costs in this cause - and this cause being founded on an instrument of writing executed by the said Defendant and the amount being ascertained thereby the Court does find that the said Defendant owes and stands justly indebted to the said Plaintiffs in the sum of $200 for their debt and that they have sustained damage by reason of the non-payment thereof in the sum of ten dollars and ten cents. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiffs have and recover of and from the said Defendant the said sum of $200 for their debt and ten dollars and ten cents for their damages together with their costs in this behalf expended for all of which execution may issue.
p 258/259
The Bank of the State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Petition in Debt
William C. Jones, John P. Campbell,
William B. Mooney and Jackson C. McKay
Now at this day come the parties aforesaid by their respective attorneys and neither party requiring a Jury this cause is submitted to the Court and thereupon the Court does find that the said Defendants owe and stand justly indebted to the said Plaintiff in the sum of $150 and that the said Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the non-payment thereof in the sum of $14.96. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said Defendants this said sum of $150 debt and $14.96 damages together with the costs by said Plaintiff in this behalf expended and that execution issue therefor.
p 259.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Lewdness
Lucinda Denny Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf and says that by leave of the Court he will not further prosecute said indictment but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said State take nothing by said indictment and that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and that she go hence without day.
52
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
Book C.
MAY TERM 1848
p 259.
Bank of the State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Petition in debt.
Littleberry Hendrick, William H. Otter,
John C. Price, William K. Lathem Defendants
Now at this day come the parties aforesaid by their respective attorneys and neither party requiring a Jury this cause is submitted to the Court and the Court does find that said Defendants owe and stand justly indebted to the said Plaintiff in the sum of $90 and that the said Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the non-payment thereof in the sum of $2.10. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said Defendants this said sum of $90 debt and $2.10 damages and also the costs by said Plaintiff in this behalf expended for all of which execution may issue.
p 259/260
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Selling Liquor Without License
Peter Apperson Defendant
Now at this day comes as well the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf and the Defendant by his attorney and the said Defendant's motion to quash said indictment being seen and fully understood by the Court is by the Court sustained. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said State take nothing by said indictment and that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and that he go hence without day.
p 260.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment assault with intent to Kill
Hezekiah S. Blankenship Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf and says that by leave of the Court he will not further prosecute said indictment but will voluntarily suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said State take nothing by said indictment and that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and that he go hence without day.
p 261.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Recognizance - To Keep the Peace
William Mason Defendant
Now at this day come again the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the said State in this behalf and the said Defendant by his Attorney and upon a reconsideration of the motion of the said Defendant to discharge the said Defendant from said recognizance it is considered by the Court that the said motion be sustained. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Defendant be hereof discharged and that he go hence without day.
p 262 nil
p 263 nil
p 264.
Ordered by the Court that capiases issue on all indictments found at the present term of this Court.
53
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
Book C.
MAY TERM 1848
p 264.
Ragland M. Langston Plaintiff
vs In Chancery
Sally Stillions et al Defendant
Now at this day it appearing to the Court that Alfred Stillions, Elisha Stillions, John Stillions, Lucinda Stillions and Elizabeth Stillions Defendants to this suit are infants under the age of 21 years and that they have neglected for more than one day after the first day of the present term of this Court at which term they were bound to
appear to this suit to procure the appointment of a guardian to defend this suit the Court does therefore appoint Sally Stillions to be Guardian for such infants in the defence of this suit.
p 265.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Indictment for Forgery No. 2
Bright Cole Defendant
Now at this day comes the said Defendant in his own proper person and presents to the Court his petition supported by his affidavit for a change of venue in this cause because the minds of the inhabitants of the County of Greene are so prejudiced against him that a fair trial cannot be had therein. It is therefore ordered by the Court that this cause be removed to the Circuit Court of the County of Lawrence in the 13th Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri. It is further ordered by the Court that the Sheriff of the County of Greene remove the body of the said Defendant to the Jail of the County of Lawrence aforesaid and there deliver him to the keeper of the Jail aforesaid together with the warrant or process by virtue of which he is imprisoned.
p 266.
Royal Shumway and Jude Snow Plaintiffs
vs Petition to forclose Mortgage
John Whitbeck Defendant
Now at this day come the said Plaintiffs by their attorney and it being proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the said Defendant has been notified by publication as the Law directs of the commencement of this suit and the said Defendant being thrice solemnly called comes not whereby the action remains undefunded. And the Plaintiffs demand being founded on an instrument of writing executed by said Defendant and the amount being ascertained thereby the Court does find that the said Defendant owes and stands justly indebted to the said Plaintiffs in the sum of $724.85 and that the said Plaintiffs have sustained damages by reason of the non-payment the same in the sum of $96.59. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said Plaintiffs have and recover of and from the said Defendant the said sum of $724.85 for their debt and also the said sum of $96.50 for their damages together with their costs in this behalf expended for all of which execution may issue to be levied of Townships No. 28 and No. 29 North of Range number 21 W the same being the mortgaged property described in said Mortgage.
p 267.
54
Keyword Search | Greene County Records Home | Local History Home