Thursday May 5th 1853
tried and sworn the truth to speak upon the issue joined
between the State of Florida and the said defendant,
Isham Peacock and D.O. Hires were examined as witnesses
on behalf of the prosecution, Wm H.G. Saunders and Jo-
-seph G. Bell were examined as witnesses on behalf of the
defence, And the said Jury having heard the evidence and
the arguments of Counsel, and the charge of the Court, retired
out of Court to consider of their verdict, and thereafter and upon
the same day the said Jury returned into Court and rendered the
following verdict We the Jury find the defendant guilty, and
assess his punishment at a fine of one dollar, Thereupon he
is ordered into custody until the said fine and costs of this
prosecution be paid.

State of Florida      }   Solicitor
         vs           }     Assault & battery
John Odum             }   Scott
                    On this day came as well the Solicitor of
the State of Florida John P. Sanderson Esqr. who prosecutes
the pleas of the State in this behalf, and the defendant in 
person and James A. Scott Esqr. his attorney and the said
defendant pleaded not guilty, Thereupon came a Jury, to wit,
Jonas Driggers, C.C. Stewart, Wm Colson, Cornelius Johns, Peter
Sparkman, Wayne Tillis, Joseph Thomas, John Ceylon and
James M. Sparkman, who were duly elected tried and sworn the
truth to speak upon the issue joined between the State of Florida,
and the said defendant  Isham Peacock, Jno. Brooker James
Odum and Wm H.G. Saunders were examined as witnesses,
And the said Jury having heard the evidence, and the argu-
ments of Counsel and the charge of the Court, were sent out of 
Court to consider of their verdict, and thereafter the said and
upon the same day, the said Jury returned the following verdict
We the Jury find the defendant not guilty, and thereupon he
is discharged from custody

State of Florida    }   Solicitor
        vs          }   Retailing Spiritous liquors without license
William D. Clark    }   Scott

   On motion of the Solicitor, it is ordered that a
Nolle prosequi be entered in this case on condition that
the defendant pay the costs of the prosecution