Copyright USGenNet Inc., 2016 All Rights Reserved USGenNet Data Repository Please read USGenNet Copyright Statement on this page: Transcribed and submitted by Linda Talbott for the USGenNet Data Repository http://www.us-data.org/ =========================================================================== Formatted by USGenNet Data Repository Chief Archivist, Linda Talbott All of the above information must remain when copied or downloaded. =========================================================================== The Indianapolis Daily Sentinel January 7, 1885 COURT-HOUSE LOCALS Complications Arising Out of the Assignment of Crittenden A. Cox The County Board Fix the Rate of Taxation at 55 Cents - Other Matters in the Courts. ANNA LONGERGAN yesterday recovered a judgment against JOHN A. MESSERSMITH and others, on a note for $7,232. The suit of SARAH J. POTTER vs. HANNAH J. PATE was dismissed in Room 2 yesterday, the death of the plaintiff being suggested. The damage suit of LEWIS E. CAMPBELL vs The I. and V. Road is on trial before Judge TAYLOR. The suit is from Morgan County. CAMPBELL issuing a right-of-way over his premises obtained by the defendant. HENRIETTA and FREDERICK BUCHERT were re-arrested yesterday by the Sheriff, and gave bonds for their appearance in court in the sum of $100 each, to answer to a charge of petit larceny. Their bonds were forfeited in the Criminal Court last week. The case against WILLIAM MOORE was tried yester- day in the Criminal Court before a jury, and at a late hour a verdict of guilty with a two year sentence attached thereto was returned. MOORE, with two companions, named JERRE HARRINGTON and JOSEPH WESTON, were indicted for assault and battery with intent to commit robbery upon TIM GRIFFIN. The trial of the other two men will come up in a few days. NELLIE TENEYCK has filed suit for divorce from EDWARD TENEYCK, whom she married in August, 1883. She alleges that her husband deserted her last month. The Wabash Road is made a co-defendant as EDWARD is employed by it, receiving $60 monthly. The household furniture was purchased on a lease on which $28 is now due, and the firm from which it was purchased is threatening to foreclose. Prayer is made for an order on the railway company to account to the court for money now in its hands due EDWARD, and for a monthly allowance thereof for plaintiff's support. Suit was filed yesterday by JOHN C. MATTHAI and others to collect an account for $700 on goods sold to CRITTENDEN A. COX. Demand is made for the goods and $200 damages for detention. A similar suit was filed by STROBEL & WILKIN, of Cincin- nati, to recover $615.36 worth of goods and for $500 damages, and by another firm for $429 worth of goods and $500 damages. These suits were brought to test the legality of the execution made by the Sheriff over a week ago, under which he was to have sold the goods yesterday. DAVID D. LONG filed his complaint, alleging the appointment of I. L. BLOOMER, assignee of COX, who afterwards resigned in favor of HORACE G. SLEEDEY, and who in turn re- signed in favor of LONG, plaintiff herein. LONG alleges that on the 26th of December, before his assignment, COX confessed judgment in favor of JOSEPH GARDNER for $3,311, and levy was made by the Sheriff, and advertisement was made for the sale. It is alleged that the notices were ot le- gally posted and printed. It is also alleged that COX stated to certain parties a short time before the confession of the judgment that he was not indebted to any one except for merchandise, and that he had $4,000, $4,500, and $5,000 invested in the business, and that he was worth $5,000 over his indebtedness. These statements had also been made in the commercial agencies in order to obtain credit, but the complaint alleges these statements are wholly inconsistent, and can not be reconciled with the existence of the debet upon which the judgment was had. The suit refer- red to was brought by COX'S own attorneys; judg- ment taken and execution issued by them, after which "they drew up the assignemt with one of them- selves as assignee." It is then alleged "that grave doubts have been expressed by divers of the credit- ors of COX as to the validity of the judgment and the indebtedness upon which it was founded and that such doubt is shared by this peitioner, that it is fraudulent and without consideration," and that the judgment was intended as a preference over the other creditors of COX, with the interest to absorb the goods thereby. Prayer is made in the complaint for an order restraining further proceed- ings by the Sheriff under the execution, and for ten days in which to present evidence touching the validity of the judgment, after which a per- petual injunction is wanted. Judge WALKER granted a restraining order till January 17. =========================================================================