Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, BY ROBERT CLARKE & CO. In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Rec. Oct. 30, 1872 JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CINCINNATI. HON. WM. Y. GHOLSON, HON. BELLAMY STORER. THE Superior Court of Cincinnati was established and organized by virtue of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, passed April 7, a. d. 1854, entitled “An Act to establish the Superior Court of Cincinnati." At a special election, held on the first Monday of May in that year, Hons. W. Y. Gholson, O. M. Spencer, and Bellamy Storer were elected to that bench; and by classification by lot, among themselves, Judge Gholson received a commission for a full term of five years, Judge Spencer for a term of four years, and Judge Storer for three years. In April, 1857, Judge Storer was re-elected and commissioned for a further term of five years. In April, 1858, Judge Spencer was re-elected and commissioned for a new term of five years. In April, 1859, Hon. George Hoadly was elected for a full term of five years, as successor to Judge Gholson, whose term expired in May, 1859. IN MEMORIAM. The preceding volume of these Reports was prefaced by an obituary notice of the late Judge Spencer, written by one of his surviving brethren still on the bench of this Court. Since its publication, the bar of Cincinnati has been called upon to lament the death of his colleague, Judge Gholson, leaving but one survivor of the three, whose judicial character has given reputation to the Court. W. Y. Gholson was born December 25, 1807, in Southampton county, Virginia; graduated at Nassau Hall, Princeton, New Jersey, and died near Cincinnati, on the 21st day of September, 1870. As a man of great intellectual power, cultivated to a high degree by incessant activity, and furnished with all that laborious study could impart; of a well-balanced temperament, uniting in just proportion, the qualities of a sound judgment with an active and subtle perception; cautious in conclusions; ingenious in reasoning; he was remarkable, not more for the depth and reach of his abilities, than for his intellectual integrity and the courage of his convictions. His moral nature was equally harmonious, and in all that constitutes probity and honor, he was without a stain. His self-respect invariably preserved a dignity that was natural and easy; his respect for others, made his demeanor a model of urbane courtesy. At the bar, his superiority was never |