The case of A. B. Miller vs. Thomas S. Williams, in replevin, was called up.

...

His honor remarked, the case of A. B. Miller vs. T. S. Williams was manifestly a chancery case.

Grand jury came into court and presented two bills of indictment.

The judge asked if they had any general report to make.

Mr. Bell replied, the grand jury wish to state that they have no business, before them at present, that they can attend to immediately.

Judge Sinclair said, It is perfectly competent for me to discharge this grand jury and call another one, or to adjourn them and then recall them, but as you have no further business before you you are discharged. And I will say that in your action towards this court, you have manifested a respect and a regard for the court which it appreciates.

Mr. Ferguson, counsel for Mr. Williams, said he could not see how this case could be held both at law and in equity, and he thought it would be proper to dismiss the case; with that view of the question he moved that the case be dismissed at law, at the cost of the plaintiff.

Mr. Smith, counsel for Mr. Miller, contended that the action was a good one, Mr. Miller claimed certain property, and if there was an equitable defense let it be made; if there was a defense in law let that be made. All the court had to do under the circumstances was to consider the case one of replevin; if it was decided to be one in chancery there would then be no intervention of a jury.

Mr. Stout said he would like to know how they could try to complaint, which was a clear action at law, without a jury, and how they could try the answer, which was in chancery, by a jury.

Court directed the issue to be tried at law, as to the right of property.

Mr. Willards made a motion for a continuance on the ground that material witnesses were absent from the Territory.

Mr. Smith opposed the continuance.

Court overruled the motion.

Mr. Blair, as attorney for the territory, wished to notify both parties that the property had been forfeited to the Territory, and that he should institute suit for its recovery.

Court allowed Mr. Williams an hour to get his witnesses and be ready for trial.

...

The following gentlemen were duly impanneled and sworn to try the issue in the case of Miller vs. Williams:

Joseph Woodmannse,

John M. Moody,

William Doney,

Thomas Clayton,

Horace Clark,

Williams Camp,

William Brooks,

Charles Mogo,

Enoch Reese,

E. W. East,

W. W. McGuire,

Thomas Box.

Chas. M. Smith, Esq., opened the case to the jury for the plaintiff.

Mr. Williams presented the case for the defense.

William H. Hooper, J. C. Little, and Thomas Adams were sworn and examined for the plaintiff.

Court ruled that evidence for the defense was not admissable.

Mr. Smith addressed the jury on the part of the plaintiff and Messrs. Williams, Stout and Blair for the defense.

The cour ruled that the complainant opened and closed. Mr. Smith closed the argument for the plaintiff.

The jury was instructed in their duties by the judge, after which they retired.

Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

The court polled the jury, which showed that ten of them were for the verdict, and John M. Moody and Wm. Brooks against it.

Upon the rendition of the verdict his honor said, I set aside the verdict as against all law and the evidence adduced in the case.

Mr. Ferguson notified the court that the defense would file a bill of exceptions to the order of the court.

Mr. Ferguson asked the court to issue a new venire immediately.

His honor replied, that he would do that when he please.

Mr Box, on behalf of the jury, asked to be discharged.

His honor answered curtly, I will discharge you when I please.

After some remarks from court and counsel the jury were discharged.

Court adjourned till to-morrow at 11 a.m.