E.A. JOSEY #7881
Vs State
of
SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH Parish of Caddo
To E.A. JOSEY of the Parish and state aforesaid, you are ? “(Note) part of transcript was missing” office at Spring Ridge on Saturday ?”(Note) part of transcript was missing”
at two Oclock in the after noon, then and there to show cause if any you can why you should not give possession of the premises on which you now reside, to SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH, who makes the demand of said premises. Hereof fail not or judgment will be rendered against you by default.
Given under
my hand officially this
J.W. WILSON J.P.
The paper
marked “A” & made part of this evidence. Witness never received any copy of
the judgment rendered in said eviction suit & move any notice of said
judgment, until the writ of eviction was executed. When witness was deposed,
defendants lease was in three or four days of expiring. His lease ended
E.A. JOSEY
All objections to ? & manor necessary of swearing to above statement.
SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH State
of
vs Parish of Caddo
E.A. JOSEY
Citation issued 18th day November 1867
Citation Served 19th
By reason of the law and evidence in the above entitled cause it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH, do have and recover of E.A. JOSEY, the house and Plantation formerly owned by MICAJAH JOHNSON, Situated about one mile south of Spring Ridge. This done and signed in open Court on the 30th day of November A.D. 1867
Signed J.W. Wilson J.P.
State of
Parish of Caddo
To N.A.C. HARRISON, Constable of the said Parish greeting,
Whereas SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH of the Parish of Caddo on the 30th day of November, before me the undersigned J.W. WILSON, justice of the peace in and for said Parish did recover a certain judgment against E.A. JOSEY of said Parish ordering and decreeing the said E.A. JOSEY to depart from the premises now by him occupied and ritefully owned for the present by the said HOLLINGSWORTH as leasor said premises being situated about one mile north of Spring Ridge and further decreed that HOLLINGSWORTH should have and recover of said JOSEY all his cotton, this be half expended whereof execution remains to be done, Now therefore you are hereby commanded in the name of the state of Louisiana to clear the premises aforesaid and expel the said E.A. JOSEY, thereby forcibly if need be and to seize and sell effects of the said JOSEY as will satisfy the damages sustained by his keeping JOSEY ejected of said premises from the day of rendering of this decree till the present time. Charges of suit and the cost of executing this writ.
Hereof fail not and make execution of this writ with JOSEY doings thereon.
Delivered and under my hand officially this
J.W.
E.A. JOSEY #7881
Vs
SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH, JACOB J. HOLLINGSWORTH & N.A HUDSON. Petition for damages.
Plaintiff
with his family was dwelling in a certain house in Caddo Parish, situated on a
tract of land the property of one MICAJAH JOHNSON, a citizen of the state of
“(Note) part of the transcript was missing” said dollars damages and cost suit. Plaintiff prays for general relief
HENRY G. HALL
Atty for plff
THOMAS JOSEY
vs
ELIJAH A. JOSEY
I, ELIJAH A. JOSEY, defendant in the
suit entitled as above, hereby waive citation & service and all legal forms
and delays & confess judgment in favor of the plaintaiff
THOMAS JOSEY, for the amount claimed in his petition, namely One Hundread and Thirty Three 20/100, and I also acknowledge
that this debt is due to plaintiff for labor done by him in the year 1867, on
the farm cultivated by me and under my management in Caddo Parish, and that
plaintiff is entitled to a privilege on the produce of said farm as claimed in
his petition.
Signed by Me in The presence of the
subscribing witnesses this
witnesses
A H Leonard
E A JOSEY
Henry G Hall
GEORGE D. BUTLER
Vs
ELIJAH A. JOSEY
To the
Honorable Judge of the Judicial Dist of the State of
The petition of GEORGE D. BUTLER who resides in Caddo Parish, respectfully represents that ELIJAH A. JOSEY, who resides in Caddo Parish is justly indebted to petitioner One Hundred and Twenty One dollars and Seventy Five cents, which is due for labor done by plaintiff under a special contract with defendant, on the farm carried in the year 1867 by defendant in Caddo Parish, Defendant contracted with plaintiff to pay him 20$ Twenty Dollars per month for his labor, & plaintiff faithfully preformed labor enough to instill him to the sum above claimed. He also claimed that he has the highest legal privilege on the produce of the said farm of the year 1867. To secure his claim, that the firm of STACEY & ROLAND, & JOHN H REYNOLDS have brought suits against said JOSEY & sequestered a quantity of corn, the produce of said farm in 1867, claiming privilege on the same to secure their demands, And while the said corn was in the charge of the Sheriff, under write of sequestration in said suits, SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH also of Caddo Parish, who was concerned in some kind of partnership with defendant in conveying on said farm in 1867, set in a claim to the whole of said corn & isued out a writ of sequestration & had the same seized by the Coroner of Caddo Parish in a suit in which said HOLLINGSWORTH is plaintiff & said JOSEY, STACEY, ROLAND, JOHN H. REYNOLDS, The Sheriff were defendants & said corn is now in the custody of said Coroner BLACKWELL. Dare THOMAS JOSEY also has sued said E.A. JOSEY for debt & claims a privilege on said corn.
Plaintiff prays that said E.A. JOSEY, THOMAS JOSEY, STACEY & ROLAND, J.H. REYNOLDS, S HOLLINGSWORTH, the Sheriff & the Coroner, all of Caddo Parish, be cited to answer hereto – that he may have judgment against said E.A. JOSEY for the amount above claimed with Legal interest from demand – that his privilege as a laborer, may be recognized & enforced upon the said corn (our the proceeds thereof should it be sold) as against all the parties concerned. Petitioner prays for general relief.
A.W.O. HICKS & HENRY G. KOLB
Atty for plff
GEORGE D. BUTLER #
7883
Vs Caddo Parish LA
E.A. JOSEY
In this case by reason of the law and the evidence, & by reason of the confession of the defendant in writing filed in this case, it is ordered adjudged and decreed that plaintiff GEORGE D. BUTLER, do have and recover of the defendant ELIJAH A. JOSEY, one hundred and twenty dollars and seventy five cents, dollars with legal interest from date to be paid by privilege out of the proceeds of the crop raised by defendant, in 1867, part of said crop being now sequestered in the suet of STACEY and POLARD vs E.A. JOSEY # 7749 & J.H. REYNOLDS vs E.A. JOSEY # 7751, pending in this Court; for which let execution issue.
This done
and signed in open Court this
JAMES WEEK ?
Judge 10th Judicial District of Louisiana
GEORGE D. BUTLER #
7883
Vs Caddo Parish, LA
E.A. JOSEY
I, ELIJAH
A. JOSEY, defendant in the suit entitled as above hereby waive citation &
service & all legal forms & delays & confess judgment in favor of
the plaintiff GEORGE D. BUTLER, for the amount claimed in his petition, namely
one hundred and twenty & 75/100 dollars; & I also acknowledge that this
debt is due to plaintiff for labor done by him in the year 1867 on the farm
cultivated by me & under my management in Caddo Parish, & that
plaintiff is entitled to a privilege on the produce of said form to secure his
wages according to the allegations of his petition. Signed by
me in the presence of the subscribing witness, this
E.A. JOSEY
Witness
ART LEONARD
HENRY G. HALL
E.A. JOSEY #
7881
Vs Caddo Parish, LA
SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH
Plaintiff E.A. JOSEY represents that SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH, defendant has died since the institution of this suit, and that J,M, HOLLINGSWORTH, JACOB HOLLINGSWORTH, AMANDA HOLLINGSWORTH, wife of R.A.GRAY & JAMES ROCHILLE a minor, represented by his tutor BENJAMIN HOLLINGSWORTH, all living in Caddo Parish – are the heirs of said SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH. He prays that his suit be removed against said heirs & that they only cited to answer - & for general relief.
HENRY G. HALL
Atty for plff
E.A. JOSEY # 7881 District Court
vs Caddo Parish, LA
SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH etal
In the case law reason of the law and the evidence being in favor of defendants, tis ordered adjudged and decreed that their be judgment for plaintiffs demand at his corn.
Done & signed in open Court on this the 31st day of May 1872
A.B. LEWIS
Judge 10th Judicial District
E.A. JOSEY #7881 May 25th 1872
vs Caddo Parish, LA
S. HOLLINGSWORTH etal
Plaintiff moves the Court to grant him a new trial on the grounds that the judgment is contrary to the law & the evidence.
HENRY G. HALL
Atty for plff
E.A. JOSEY
#
7881
Vs Caddo Parish, LA
S. HOLLINGSWORTH District Court
Testimony of S. HOLLINGSWORTH taken on his behalf by consent.
S.
HOLLINGSWORTH, Corner says that about the first of last of November 1867, or
middle of November. December 1867, JOSEY Plaintiff was living on a place which
witness has rented situated in said parish belonging to M. JOHNSON. Witness
went to him & told him he wants possession of the place. JOSEY promised to
leave & for a while pretended to be looking for a place but soon refused to
leave. Witness then wrote out a notice to JOSEY to leave the place, which he
read to JOSEY, who refused to take it in presence of GABE ROZEMAN & SAM
MOORE. Witness then instituted suit against JOSEY, before Justice NELSON, the
Justice of the ward in which JOSEY was living, to evict said JOSEY from said
place. Said suit was true & said Justice rendered a Judgment ordered said
JOSEY to leave said place. JOSEY still refused to leave and one day about the
last of December 1867, as witness was going up to Spring Ridge, with JACOB
HOLLINGSWORTH, they met the Constable of said ward with a posse of men going up
to enforce this Judgment rendered by said Justice. The Constable asked witness
to go along and witness consented, and JAKE HOLLINGSWORTH also went along. The
Constable went to the JOHNSON place and demanded possession, JOSEY was not
present at the place. Mrs. JOSEY, his wife refused to give up the place or to
move out the furniture & other effects. The Constable then had said effects
& furniture moved out & set outside the gate. There were two men
present in the house with Mrs. JOSEY, one was JOSEYS son & the other was named
The reason why witness brought suit against JOSEY, to evict him was that witness & JOSEY had gotten into an agreement by which said JOHNSON place was to be cultivated by them. Witness was to furnish & do certain things & JOSEY was to furnish & do certain things. The said JOSEY failed to comply with his agreement, and finally in consequence of the crop planted on said place getting in the grass and the worms destroying the Cotton, the negroes on the place became dissatisfied and JOSEY came to witness & told him it would be better to pay the hands off & abandon the crop. Witness paid the hands off & JOSEY abandoned the crop and the agreement as witness considered was at an end. Sometime afterward witness wanted possession of the place and went to JOSEY as herein before stated and requested him to give possession. Witness wanted possession & control of the place in order to feed a lot of cattle he had bought. Witness was responsible to JOHNSON for the place. He wanted possession of the place & to get JOSEY off of it because the place was being damaged, the fences cut & burned.
SAM HOLLINGSWORTH
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 12th day of June 1869
N.N. Wright
Deputy Clerk