Tuesday May 6th 1851

George M. Galpin   }
       vs          }  Assumpsit
John C. Hately     }
                      A Judgment by default having been
taken by the plaintiff in this case, and a writ of inquiry
for a Jury to assess the damages having been issued and re=
=turned the following named persons were duly empanneled
and sworn as a Jury to assess the damages, to wit,
1  John S. Chessire         5  William D. Clarke        9  James G. Cameron
2  Burrill T. Stokes        6  William Hornsby          10 James Burnett
3  Daniel Stroble           7  Bennett M. Dell          11 Bryant Glisson
4  Philip Dell              8  John Dixon               12 Enoch T. Geiger
              Calvin Bryan, Saml W. Burnett, William Dell
William D. Clarke, and Henry C. Wilson were sworn as witnesses
on behalf of the plaintiff     And the Said Jury having heard
the evidence and the arguments of Counsel 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 for the plaintiff and assess his damages
at Sixty Seven dollars and Seven cents. Thereupon it is con-
-sidered and adjudged by the Court that the plaintiff do recover
of the defendant the Sum of Sixty Seven dollars and Seven cents
for his damages on account of the non performance of the promises
and assumptions in plaintiffs declaration mentioned and also the
sum of Two   dollars and Seventy five cents for his costs in
and about his Suit in this behalf expended  And the defendant
in mercy &c

State of Florida  }
       vs         }  Indictments for adultery & fornication
Lewis Sparkman    }
                     It appearing to the Court that the defendant
had intermarried with a female with whom he is charged
with committing the offence for which he stands indicted, on
motion of the Solicitor this case is dismissed


State of Florida  }
       vs         }  Indictment for resisting execution of
Lewis Sparkman    }            civil process

                   It appearing that the defendant had not been
arrested on motion of the Solicitor it is ordered that a pluries capias
do issue, and that this case be continued