Springfield-Greene
County LibraryJanuary Term 1864
Book F.
January 25th
p 262.
Be it remembered that at the regular term of the Greene Circuit Court began and held at the Court House in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, on the Fourth Monday of January 1864 there was present Honorable John Waddill, Judge of the 14th Judicial Circuit in the State of Missouri, James F. Hardin, Circuit Attorney for said Circuit, M.J. Hubble, Clerk of said Court & Thomas A. Read, Sheriff of said County when and where the following proceedings were had viz
Now at this day comes the Sheriff of Greene County and returns into Court a venire for a panel of Grand Jurors, viz:
Samuel Woods, W.B. Gregory, J.B. Perkins, S.D. Bird, William S. Landreth, M.H. Whitlock, A. Snider, A.J. Potter, J. Cunningham, J. Chaffin, B.R. Johnson, J.W. Lowery, Robert Pate, William Reynolds, E.J. Moore, M.M. Parsely, Alsey oneal, Greene B. Phillips Eighteen good and lawful men who took the oath prescribed by this convention and having been sworn and charged and Samuel Woods having been appointed and sworn as Foreman, retired to consider of their presentments.
Sheppard & Kimbrough Plaintiffs
vs Civil Action
B.C. Hardin Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff by attorney and on his motion leave is given to withdraw the instrument sued on by leaving a copy of the same.
Pages 263 & 264 Motions filed.
p 265.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #1. Selling Goods Without License
A.O. Fairchilds & K.H.S. Fairchilds Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and says he is not willing to prosecute this suit any further as to K.H.S. Fairchilds. It is therefore ordered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing against Defen ant K.H.S. Fairchilds and that be be discharged hereof and go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #2. Selling Goods Without License
A.O. Fairchilds & K.H.S. Fairchilds Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and says he is not willing to prosecute this suit any further as to K.H.S. Fairchilds. It is therefore ordered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing against Defen ant K.H.S. Fairchilds and that he be discharged hereof and go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #3. Selling Goods Without License
A.O. Fairchilds & K.H.S. Fairchilds Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and says he is not willing to prosecute this suit any further as to K.H.S. Fairchilds. It is therefore ordered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing against Defen ant K.H.S. Fairchilds and that he be discharged hereof and go hence without day.
p 266.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #1. Selling Gooods Without License
A.O. Fairchilds Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes this suit in behalf of the
(continued)
81
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
JANUARY TERM 1864
Book F.
p 266 (continued)
State and the Defendant who for a plea says that he is guilty of the offense as charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is therefore considered by the Court that the Defendant be fined in the sum of $50 for the commission of said offense. It is therefore decreed and adjudged by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from the Defendant the fine aforesaid together with the cost laid out and expended in this behalf and that execution issue therefor.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #2 Selling Goods Without License
A.O. Fairchilds Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes this suit in behalf of the State and says that he is not willing to prosecute this suit any further. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing in this behalf and that the Defendant be discharged and go hence without day by paying the cost in this behalf and that execution issue therefor.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #3 Selling Goods Without License
A.O. Fairchilds Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes this suit in behalf of the State and says that he is not willing to prosecute this suit any further. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing in this behalf and that Defendant be discharged and go hence without day by paying the cost in this behalf and t hat execution issue therefor.
p 266/267.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Gaming
A.N. Julian Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant who for a plea says he isguilty as charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is therefore considered by the Court that the Defendant be fined in the sum of $10. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from said Defendant sum of $10 and cost laid out and expended in this behalf and that execution issue therefor.
p 267.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Gaming
W.M. Armstrong Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and also the Defendant who for a plea says he is guilty as charged in the Bill of Indictment. It is ordered by the Court that the Defendant be fined in the sum of $10. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from said Defendant sum of $10 and cost laid out and expended in this behalf and that execution issue therefor.
Sheppard and Kimbrough, a firm
composed of Henry Sheppard
& John S. Kimbrough Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
Benjamin C. Hardin Defendant
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff by attorney and by leave of Court file their petition, bond and affidavit in this cause the object of which is to obtain judgment
(continued)
82
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 267 (continued)
against the Defendant for the sum of $211.68 and interest on the same from the first January 1861 as evidenced by his promissory note attached and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court from the affidavit of Plaintiff that the Defendant has absented or absconded himself from his usual place of abode in this State so that the ordinary process cannot be served on him. It is therefore ordered by the Court that a Writ of Attachment issue against Defendant's property and that he be notified by publication in the Springfield Journal, a weekly newspaper printed in this State for four successive weeks the last insertion to be at least four weeks before the first day of the next term of this Court to be and appear before the 6th day thereof if the term shall so long continue (if not then before the end of the term) which commences at the Court House in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, on the first Monday in August1864 and plead, answer or demur to Plaintiff's petition or the same will be taken as true and a judgment rendered against him and his effects sold to satisfy the same.
p 268.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Target Shooting
W.M. Armstrong Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by attorney and by leave of Court files his motion to quash the Indictment in this cause.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs
John Carter Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney whoprosecutes on behalf of the State and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs
William Gash Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Felonious Assault
Daniel Flint Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant go hence without day.
p 269.
Andrews & Vaughn Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
G.L. Mitchell Defendant
Now at this day comes L.M. Bigbee and by leave of Court files herein his interplea and claims part of the property levied on by Writ of Attachment in this cause.
83
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 269.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs
George Laney Defendant
Now at this day comes L.M. Bigbee and by leave of Court files herein his interplea and claims part of the property levied on by Writ of Attachment in this cause.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Disturbing Peace of Family
Daniel Flint Defendant
Now at this day comes L.M. Bigbee and by leave of Court files herein his interplea and claims part of the property levied on by Writ of Attachment in this cause.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs
W. Thompson Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes in this cause and suggests to the Court the death of G. P. Shackleford one of the securities of Defendant in in the above entitled cause and on his motion it is ordered that the administrators of said deceased viz B.W. Henslee and W.S. Norfleet be served with a sura facias and required show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them as such administrators.
p 270.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Gaming
William J. Cannefax Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and on his motion the forfeiture of recognizance taken in this cause is by the Court set aside. And the said Circuit Attorney says by leave of Court he will not further prosecute.It is therefore ordered by the Courtthat the same be dismissed, that the State take nothing by her Writ and that the Defendant be discharged hereof and go hence without day and that fee bill issue.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Cruelty to Animals
Joseph Slakely Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes for the State and by leave of Court says that he will not further prosecute.It is therefore ordered by the Court that the same be dismissed, that the Defendant be discharged hereof and go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs
A.M. Goddard Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and on his motion the forfeiture heretofore taken in this cause set aside and the said Circuit Attorney says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause but suffer the same to be dismissed.It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant go hence without day.
84
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F.
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 270
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Murder
Jacob Hick Defendant
Now at this day comes on this cause to be heard and on motion of the Circuit Attorney a pIe___ capias is ordered to issue in this cause to Phelps County.
p 271.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
John Jenkins Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause but suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
R.T. Nelson Defendant
Now at this day this cause is called and the Circuit Attorney having been of Counsel in this cause James Baker is appointed Prosecuting Attorney for said cause.
R.A.M. Rose Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
W.T. Carter Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant and by Attorney and files his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment heretofore rendered in cause and to set aside the sale of land made under the execution issued on said judgment.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Treason
W.L. Chapman Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by attorney and in his own proper person and by leave of Court files his motion to quash the indictment in this cause.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #2 Treason
Enos Pipkin Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by attorney and in his own proper person and by leave of Court files his demurer in this cause.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Treason
William Gray Defendant
Now at this day comes the defendant by attorney and in his own proper person and by leave of Court files his demurer in this cause.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Felonious Assault
James W. Blakey Defendant
Now at this day it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court at the regular term of Greene Circuit Court which was held at the Court House in Greene County, Missouri, and on the 6th day thereof it being the 31st day of January 1863 a forfeiture of recognizance was taken against James W. Blakey and William H. Blakey his security in the sum of $200
(continued)
85
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 272/273 (continued)
and that on the 15th day of September 1863 a sciria facias was issued directed to the Sheriff of said County of Greene requiring the said James W. Blakey and William H. Blakey to be and appear at the next term of this Court which would commence on fourth Monday in January 1864 and on the first day thereof and show cause if any they have why such judgment should not be made final and it appearing from the Sheriff's return that the said James W. Blakey is nonresident of this State so that the ordinary process of Law cannot be served upon him.It is therefore ordered by the Court that publication be made in the Springfield Journal, a newspaper printed in the State of Missouri for four successive weeks the last insertion to be at least four weeks before the first day of the next term of this Court which commences on the first Monday in August 1864 notifying said James W. Blakey to appear on the first day of the next term of this Court and show cause if any he has why judgment should not be rendered against him otherwise judgment will be rendered against him and his property sold to satisfy the same.
p 273.
Ordered by the Court that adjourn untill tomorrow morning 9 o'clock.
John S. Waddill C.J.
January 26th 1864
Court met pursuant to adjournment present as on yesterday.
p 274.
Now at this day comes A.F. Church formerly Coroner of Greene County and acknowledges in Open Court the execution of a Deed to J.B. Winger to the following described real estate, viz NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Section 35 Township 20 Range 24, he being the highest bidder for said land under an execution in favor of Greene County, Missouri, and against J.M. Bailey, William Hunt, H.S. Chenoweth and H.N. Parish.
Motions filed:
H.J. Rose vs W.L. Carter, K. Rose -- Plaintiff files his petition.
James Vaughan & B.G. Andrews vs G.L. Mitchell -- Plaintiff files interrogations to T.W. Kelton.
James Vaughan and B.G. Andrews vs G.L. Mitchell -- Plaintiff files interregations to James H. Fagg.
McClurg, Murphy and Co. vs Noah Atkins -- Defendant files his answer.
State of Missouri vs G.F. Layton -- Defendant files motion to quash indictment.
p 275.
J.F. Campbell vs L.A. Campbell comes R.J. McElhaney by attorney and files interplea.
William R. Hendrick, adm vs John M. Richardson -- Defendant files time for pleading.
State of Missouri vs Frank Smith -- Disturbing the Peace of a Family alias writ ordered issued.
State of Missouri vs Frank Smith -- Disturbing the Peace of a Family Circuit Attorney Motion of sciria facias ordered.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Felonious Assault
A.M. Huff Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause but suffers the same to be dismissed.It is therefore considered by the Court the State take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant go hence without day and that a Fee Bill issue in said cause.
86
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 275
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Murder
James Maxfield Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and on his motion an alias capias is ordered to issue on this cause.
p 276. January 26th 1864.
Joel Nilkerson vs John Cox. Defendant files his answer to this cause.
State of Missouri vs W.H. Worrell Tipling. #2 Defendant files motion to quash.
State of Missouri vs James H. Fagg. Defendant files motion to quash.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Gaming
Henry Matlock Defendant
Now at this day this cause coming on to be heard the Defendant appears in his own proper person and for a plea says he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Indictment. It is therefore considered by the Court that Defendant be fined $10 for committing said offence and that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from Defendant Henry Matlock the sum of $10 for committing said offence and that execution may issue therefor.
State of Missouri vs _____ Lopez. Defendant files motion to quash.
State of Missouri vs J.P. Campbell . Defendant files motion to quash.
p 277.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Public Indecency
Reuben A.M. Rose Defendant
Now at this day this cause comes on to be heard and the Circuit Attorney having announced ready for trial and the Defendant appearing in his own proper person and by attorney and having announced ready for trial thereupon comes a Jury, viz:John Schmook, E.A. Crumpley, N.A. Murphy, J.J. Campbell, A.H. Kelly, J.A. Keltner, N.C. Chaffin, William McDorman, T.J. Apperson, J.B. Magers, M. Brashears and M. Roberts, 12 good and lawful men who having subscribed and sworn to the oath prescribed by the convention were sworn to try the issue and after having heard the evidence and received the instruction of the Court retired to consider of their verdict. Upon returning into Court the said Jurors presented through their foreman their verdict which is in words and figures as follows, viz: "We the Jury find the prisoner not guilty."It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing by her said Writ and Defendant go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
Henry T. Wilson Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause but suffer the same to be dismissed.It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
J. Creason Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and on his motion an alias capias is ordered to issue in this cause.
87
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 278.
State of Missouri vs J.J. Weaver Treason. #1 & #2 Defendant motion to quash.
State of Missouri vs Noah Atkins, Robert Love. Selling Goods without license Defendant filed motion to quash.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Selling Goods Without License.
Wolf and Myer Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and the Defendants by attorney and for a plea say they are guilty in manner and form charged in the Indictments.It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that Judgment be rendered against the Wolf and Myer for committing this offence aforesaid and for use and benefit of the said State in the sum of $50 and costs of suit and for which execution may issue.
Now at this day comes the Grand Jury in to Open Court and through their foreman return into Court six bills of Indictment.
p 279.
State of Missouri vs Josiah Leedy. Disturbing Peace of Family -- motion of circuit attorney -- James H. Shaw appointed Pros. Att for this case.
State of Missouri vs Josiah Leedy. Robbery Motion of Circuit -- Attorney James H Shaw appointed prosecuting Attorney for this cause.
State of Missouri vs Thomas J. Andrews. Felonious Assault -- Motion of Circuit Attorney -- James H. Shaw appointed Prosecuting Attorney for this case.
McClurg Murphy and Co. vs Noah Atkins. Plaintiff files motion to strikeout Defendant answer.
T.J. Bailey Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
John S. Kimbrough Defendant
Now at this day comes on to be heard this motion heretofore filed and strike out part of Plaintiff petition which said motion is by the Court overruled to which ruling of the Court the Defendant excepts.
p 280.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Disturbing Peace of a Family
Frank Smith Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes on behalf of the State and the Defendant having been thrice called came not but made default and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that the Defendant, Frank Smith, on the 21st day of February 1863 A.D. entered into recognizance to the State of Missouri in the sum of $100 with John L. Davis and J.A. Carter as his securities to be void on the condition that the said Frank Smith be and make his personal appearance before the Judge of the Greene County Circuit Court at a Court to be held at the Court House in Springfield, county and state aforesaid, commencing on the 4th Monday in January 1864 then and there to answer to a Bill of Indictment preferred against him by the Grand Jury of said County for Grand Larceny and not depart said Court without leave and the said John L. Davis and J.A. Carter being thrice called and required to bring into Court the body of the said Frank Smith in obedience to his said recognizance came not but also made default.It is therefore considered by the Court that said recognizance be forfeited to the State of Missouri and sciria facias be issued to the said Frank Smith, John L. Davis and J.A. Carter requiring them to be and appear at the next term of the Greene Circuit Court at a Court to commence on the 4th Monday in August 1864 and show cause, if any they have, why judgment shall not be rendered against them for the said sum of $100 and cost of this suit and execution issue therefor.
88
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 280/281
H.J. Rose Plaintiff
vs Civil Action by Attachment
W.T. Carter & R. Rose Defendants
Now at this day comes the Plaintiff in this action by attorney and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court by the Plaintiff's affidavit annexed to the petition that the Defendant W.T. Carter is a nonresident of the State of Missouri.It is therefore ordered by the Court that the Plaintiff notify Defendant by publication in the Springfield Journal, a newspaper published in the State of Missouri for four successive weeks the last insertion to be at least four weeks before the first day of the next term of this Court that he has commenced action against in the Greene Circuit Court on a promissory note dated 7th day of September 1860 executed by Defendants to one Sarah Cannefax for the sum of $200 payable 12 months after date bearing interest at the rate of 10% per annum and the said note was delivered to said Plaintiff for a consideration and that the said Plaintiff is the legal owner and holder of said note and unless he be and appear at the next term of the Greene Circuit Court which will be begun and held at the Court House in the town of Springfield in said County of Greene on the first Monday in August, A.D. l864 and on or before the 6th day thereof if the term shall so long continue if not then before the end of the term and plead, answer or demur to Plaintiffs petition, judgment will be rendered against him and his property sold to satisfy the same.
p 281.
Ordered by the Court that Court adjourn until tomorrow morning 9 o'clock.
John S. Waddill C J
January 27th 1864
Court met pursuant to adjournment, present as on yesterday.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to William E. Rose to the following described real estate, viz the SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 Section 12 Township 28 Range 23 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said Rose being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of McElhaney, Jaggard and Co. & McElhaney and Jaggard and against Meredith N. Carter.
p 281/282.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to J.B. Majors to the following descri bed real estate viz: NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 11 Township 28 Range 23 in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, said Majors being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of McElhaney Jaggard and Co. and McElhaney and Jaggard and against Meredith N. Carter.
p 282.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to William B. Farmer to the following described real estate, viz SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Section 14 Township 29 Range 22 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said William B. Farmer being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Joseph J. Weaver and John Wallace and against Henry Fulbright.
89
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 282.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to L.A. Robertson to the following described real estate, viz: W1/2 of the SE 1/4 Section 14 Township 29 Range 23 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said Farmer being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Sidney N. Ingram and against John S. Blackman and William W. Blackman.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to William H. Overstreet to the following described real estate, viz E 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 the SE 1/4 and NE 1/4 Section 34 and part of the SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Section 33 Township 30 Range 24 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said Overstreet being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Elisha Headlee adm and against George W. Dorrell.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to William B. Farmer to the following described real estate, viz SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Section 14 in Township 29 Range 22 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said William B. Farmer being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Joseph J. Weaver and John Wallace and against Henry Fulbright.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to L.A. Robertson to the following described real estate, viz W 1/2 SE 1/4 Section 14 Township 29 Range 23 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said Farmer being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Sidney N. Ingram and against John S. Blackman and William W. Blackman.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to William H. Overstreet to the following described real estate viz E 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 32 and part of SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 33 Township 30 Range 24 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said Overstreet being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Elisha Headlee admin and against George W. Dorrell.
p 283.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to Wesley Austin to the following described real estate, viz NE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 10 and NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 9 all in Township 28 Range 21 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said Austin being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Wesley Austin and against Brashears.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to N.P. Murphy and M.J. Hubble to the following described real estate, viz beginning at the South corner of the SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 Section 23 Township 29 Range 22, thence East 20 poles, thence North 12 poles for a beginning corner running thence 20 poles North 28 poles, thence West 20 poles, thence South 28 poles to the beginning lying and being in Greene County, Missouri, said
(continued)
90
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 283 (continued)
Murphy and Hubble the purchasers of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Nathan P. Murphy and Martin J. Hubble and against Benjamin E. Hopson.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to William McDorman to the following described real estate, viz SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 16 Lot No 7 NW fcl 1/4 and W 1/2 of Lot 8 NW fcl 1/4 Section 3 all in Township 29 Range 24 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said McDorman being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of William McDorman and against Alexander R. Williams.
p 284.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to James F. Robinson to the following described real estate, viz E1/2 Lot 6 NW fcl 1/4 Section 1 Township 29 Range 23 and E1/2 Lot 5 NW fcl 1/4 Section 5 Township 29 Range 23 and W1/2 Lot 6 NW fcl 1/4 Section 1 Township 29 Range 23 in Greene County, State of Missouri, said Robinson being the purchaser of said land under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of William B. Lay and against Charles T. Tatum.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to William H. Payne to the following described real estate, viz the W1/2 of the SW 1/4 Section 5 Township 27 Range 21 in Christian County Missouri said Payne being the purchaser of said land under an execu ion issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Rebecca Payne, Anderson H. Payne, W.H. Payne, Lucinda McNatt, John B. McNatt, H.R. Payne, David M. Payne and Thomas B. Payne and against Daniel Payne, Mary A. Britten, Lafayette Britten, Martha J. Robinson and James Robinson.
Now at this day comes Thomas A. Reed, Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in Open Court and acknowledged that he executed a Deed to Joseph J. Weaver to the following described real estate, viz NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 26 Township 29 Range 22 and Lots 1 & 7 in Block 1 of the Fair Ground Addition to the City of Springfield, Missouri, under an execution issued from the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County and State in favor of Thomas J. Whitlock and against William A. Campbell and Samuel S. Vinton.
p 285.
Greene County Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
Kindred Rose Defendant
Now at this day comes the exofficio County Attorney having been of Counsel for defence in the Court below H.J. Lindenbower and J.W.L.F. Mack are by the Court appointed attorney to prosecute this cause.
Greene County Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
Now at this day this exofficio County Attorney having been of Counsel for defence in the Court below N.J. Lindenbower and J.W.D.L.F. Mack are by the Court appointed attorney for the prosecution of this cause.
91
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F.
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 285.
Greene County Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
Kindred Rose Defendant
Now at this day the Circuit Attorney having been of Counsel in this cause in the Court below H. J. Lindenbower and J.W.D.L.F. Mack are by the Court appointed attorneys for Plaintiff in this cause.
Greene County Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
John M. Wood Defendant
Now at this day it appearing that the County Attorney had been of Counsel for Defendant in the Court below attorneys Lindenbower and Mack are by the Court appointed attorneys for Plaintiff in this cause.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Selling Goods Without License
E. Friebourg Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by attorney and by leave of Court files his motion to quash the Indictment in this cause.
p 286.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Selling Goods Without License
E. Friebourg Defendant
Now at this day comes on to be heard the motion to quash the Indictment heretofore filed in this cause and all and singular the premises being seen and fully understood by the Court said motion is by the Court overruled to which ruling of Court the Defendant excepts.
McClurg Murphy and Co Plaintiff
vs Civil Action
Noah Atkins Defendant
Now at this day comes on to be heard the motion heretofore filed to strike out part ofthe Defendants answer in this cause and all and singular the premises being seen and fully understood by the Court said rnotion is by the Court sustained.
p 287.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Selling Goods Without License
E. Friebourg Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and the Defendant in his own proper person and by attorney having announced themselves ready for trial, the Defendant for a plea says he is not guilty in manner and form as charged in the Indictment.Thereupon there came a Jury viz E.A. Crumpley, D.R. Riggs, J.M. Daniels, Eli Spoon, B.F. Doods, E. Baker, R.A. McCluer, P.J. Meis, J.B. Brown, E.L. McElhaney, A. Garason, A.H. Kelly, twelve good and lawful men who, after taking and subscribing the oath prescribed by the c0nvention were sworn to try the issue.Having heard the evidence and instructions of the Court retired to consider of their verdict.Upon returning into Court, through their foreman, presented the following verdict, viz: "We the Jury find the Defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the Indictment and assess his fine at $50, Eli A. Crumpley foreman."It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from Defendant the said sum of $50 and for which execution may issue whereupon Defendant comes forward and files his Bill of Exceptions in this cause.
92
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864.
p 287.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Selling Goods Without License
E. Friebourg Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant and files his motion for a new trial in this cause and all singular the premises being seen and fully understood by the Court said motion is by the Court overruled to which ruling of the Defendant excepted.
p 288.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Selling Goods Without License
E. Friebourg Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant by attorney and by leave of Court files his motion to arrest judgment in this cause.
p 288.
B.G. Andrews & James Vaughan Plaintiffs
vs Civil Action
G.L. Mitchell Defendant
Now at this day it is ordered by the Court that L.M. Bigbee garnishee in this cause has answered as such. It is ordered by the Court that said Bigbee be allowed $5 for said answer.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Solemnizing Marriage Unlawfully
Edward Tatum Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and the Defendant by attorney and on motion of the Circuit Attorney the forfeiture heretofore taken in this cause is set aside and the Defendant for a plea says he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Indictment. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the Defendant be fined $500 for committing said offence and execution may issue therefor.
p 289. 27 January 1864.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Selling Goods Without License
Noah Atkins & Robert Love Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and the Defendant Atkins in his own proper person and for a plea says he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Indictment. It is therefore considered by the Court that the Defendant be fined $50 for committing said offence and that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from Defendant her said debt and for which execution may issue.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Felonious Assault
N.S. Richmond Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and the Defendant in his own proper person and by attorney and the Defendant says for a plea that he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the Indictment. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that Defendant be fined $100 for committing said offence and that execution may issue therefor and that Defendant be ordered into custody of the Sheriff until costs and fine are paid.
93
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 290.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
Thomas Jessup Defendant
Now at this day comes S.J. Gott one of the Defendant's securities in this cause and delivers up in Court the Defendant and says that he is unwilling to further bail said Jessup whereupon Defendant was ordered into the hands of the Sheriff.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
James Kerr Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney and upon evidence being introduced that the Defendant is not a person indicted, this cause is dismissed as to the Defendant James Kerr now in Court and it is ordered by the Court that the Defendant go hence without day.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
James Carr, alias James Kerr Defendant
Now at this day evidence is introduced to the Court showing that the present Defendant is not the person indicted.It is therefore considered by the Court that Defendant be dismissed and go hence without day.
p 291.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Felonious Assault
T.J. Andrews Defendant
Now at this day comes the Defendant in his own proper person and by attorney and files his affidavit to continue and all and singular the premises being seen and fully understood, said cause is by the Court continued until next term.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
Thomas F. Jessup Defendant
Now at this day comes Thomas Jessup as principal and William Armstrong and J.R. Townsend and Thomas J. Andrews as securities and acknowledge themselves both to owe and stand indebted to the State of Missouri in the sum of $100 to be levied of their respective goods and chattels, land and tenements but to be void on condition that the said Thomas Jessup shall be and make his personal appearance before the Honorable Judge of our Greene Circuit Court at the next term thereof which will be held at the Court House in Greene County, Missouri, on the first Monday in August 1864 and answer to an Indictment preferred against him by the Grand Jury of Greene County for Grand Larceny and not depart said Court without leave otherwise to remain in full force.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Keeping Gambling Device
J.H. Fagg Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney and the Defendant in his own proper person and by attorney and having announced themselves ready for trial the Defendant pleads not guilty whereupon there comes a Jury, viz: W. Wallace, S.J. Gott, J.J. Campbell, J.J. Phillips, T.M. Chambers, Baker Russell, N.J. Rose, J.M. Chandler, T.J. Myers, E.A. Crumpley, _ . B. Kerr, A. Woodward, twelve good and lawful men who having taken and subscribed the oath prescribed by the convention were sworn to try the issue whereupon the evidence was submitted to the Jury and there not being time to try said cause it is continued until tomorrow morning 9 o'clock.
94
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT CASES
BOOK F.
JANUARY TERM 1864
p 292.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #1 Exposing Goods For Sale on Sunday
C. Levy & Newmark Defendants
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause vs Defendant Newmark and the Defendant Charles Levy in his own proper person and by attorney for a plea says he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. It is therefore considered by the Court that Defendant be fined $10 for the commission of said offence and that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from Defendant the said $10 and costs in this behalf laid out and expended for which execution may issue and that the Defendant be committed to the custody of the Sheriff until fine and costs paid.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Exposing Goods for Sale on Sunday
C. Levy and Newmark Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this cause but suffer the same to be dismissed as to Defendant Newmark and also as to Defendant Charles Levy upon his paying the costs in this behalf. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri have and recover of and from Defendant her costs in this behalf laid out and expended and that Defendant remain in the custody of the Sheriff until said costs are paid.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #1 Selling Goods on Sunday
C. Levy and Newmark Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney whoprosecutes and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this suit as to Defendant Newmark but suffer the same to be dismissed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take nothing by her said Writ and that Defendant Newmark go hence without day and that this cause be also dismissed at the cost of Defendant Charles Levy.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs #2 Selling Goods on Sunday
C. Levy and Newmark Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney who prosecutes and says he is unwilling to further prosecute this suit as to Defendant Newmark but suffer the same to be di missed. It is therefore considered by the Court that the State of Missouri take not ing by her said Writ and that Defendant Newmark go hence without day and that this cause be also dismissed at the cost of Defendant Charles Levy.
State of Missouri Plaintiff
vs Grand Larceny
Willis Mills Defendant
Now at this day comes the Circuit Attorney and the Defendant in his own proper person and by attorney and by consent this cause is continued until the next term of this Court and that a fee bill issue in this cause.
p 293.
Ordered by the Court that Court adjourn till tomorrow morning 9 o'clock.
John S. Waddill C J
Springfield, Missouri, January 28, 1864
Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present as on yesterday.
95
Keyword Search | Greene County Records Home | Local History Home