COURT ORDER: John Leewright vs Joseph R. Hoskins, 1824, Bullitt Co., KY
COURT ORDER: John Day vs. Joseph R. Hoskins, 1824, Bullitt Co., KY

 
**********************************************************************
USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE:  These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format 
for profit or presentation by any other organization or persons.  Persons or 
organizations desiring to use this material, must obtain the written consent of the 
contributor, or the legal representative of the submitter, and contact the listed 
USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent. The submitter has given permission to 
the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access. 
http://www.usgwarchives.net 

Transcribed by: Anne livings1@aol.com
Date: 26 Jan 2001
**********************************************************************

21 Feb 1824 Bullitt County Circuit Court Order Book JOHN LEEWRIGHT vs. JOSEPH  R. 
HOSKINS.  This day came the Complainants by his Counsil and approved John  WHITLEDGE 
as further security in the Injunction Bond who is approved of  whereon the said 
WHITLEDGE executed said bond.

7 Aug 1824 Bullitt County Circuit Court Order Book  JOHN DAY & Wife against  JOSEPH R. 
HOSKINS.  On Motion of the  Court it is ordered that a pluris  capias issue against 
the defendants HOSKINS and wife directed to Washington  County returnable to the next 
Term until which time this cause is Continued.

21 Feb 1825 Bullitt County Circuit Court Order Book Justices for JOHN DAY &  wife vs. 
JOSEPH R. HOSKINS & wife. This day came the parties by their attornies and the 
defendant filed the plea  of Covenants performed and the plaintiff a  ____ and the 
defendants a joinder  whereupon came a jury towit: Henry R. HEAD, William MILLER, 
William BOYLE,  Joseph L. McGEE, Henry SMALL, Samuel JEWELL, Jesse SWEARENGEN, Solomon 
HORNBECK, Granville C. ROBARDS, John W. SANDERS/LANDERS (foreman), Samuel  GOLDSMITH 
and Tandy DAVIS who being  sworn the truth to speak upon the issue  joined upon these 
oaths returned unto court the following verdict towit “we  the jury  for the 
defendants".  It is considered by the court that the  plaintiff take nothing by their 
bill but for their false claimor be in mercy  etc. and that the defendants go hence 
without  delay and recover of the  plaintiff their costs by them.