The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1851-06-21
Let there be general turn out,
Supreme Court.

The following cases have been asued since our
last notice:
The People, dc, ex. rel. Nm. Il. Stephenson
VS. Samuel S. Marshall, .jvdge of the l2h Judi
eiai GENERALIZATION for Mandamus--This was
an agreed case and presented the following ques.
ton; BY the new constitution it is provided that
no county shall be divided or county lines altered,
except by vote of the people Of the county.
At the last session the Legislature an act pass.
ed to abolish the counties of Glllatin and Saline,
and 10 erect new county ont Of the territory Of
those two counties, fixing the county seat at T.
quality, which was not the county seat Of either Of
the old counties. The relator contends that this
act is unconstitutional because the question was
not submitted to vote of the people, and moves
for mandamus, directing the defendant, who is
Judge Of the circuit court, to hold term Of that
court in Saline county, at the old county seat.
Wingate d Lincoln for rcla.or
Montgomery d Caldwell for respondent
Canal Trpstees vs.. Daniel Brainard-Appeal
from Cook county Court-This was a case invol.
wing several Of the same questions presented in
the case Of the Trustees u.s. Dyer ct al, noticed
last week. Brainard claims as the owner Of im.
provements on quarter section Of land near
Chicago pre- emption right to the whole quar-.
ter. The improvements were made prior tn De
cember, 1912, the person who made the improve
ments occupying the land under permit from
the canal agent. Before the land was appraised
it was laid out into city lots by the trustees, By
the trustees it is insisted that the person making
the Improvements having occupied the land un.
der permit, and having given bond to .urren.
der the possession Of sa:d land with the improve
ments, when required, he wa, merely the tenant
OF the trustees, not tho o,,,sr of the improve.
ments and not entitled to a presumption The
defendant insists tina. the law Of lsi3, providing
for pre- emptions, was made for precisely such en-.
ses as this. II vas also denied shat the person
making the improvements occupied the land by
virtue OF any legal permit The trustees also
contend that these presumption rights are not
assigaabe, and that in any event defendant, is en-
titled only to pre- emption to the town lots upon
which his improvements are located The Co
court sustained Defendants claim to prs.emp
ton to the quarter section. Trustees appeal
For appellant Me,srs. Arnold and Purple; for mp.
pellee Judd and Douglass.
EB. Ward e, ais vs.. O. Saii,Juy-Appeal
from Cook county court-Salisbury, who was
plaintiff below, recovered judgment in the
court below against tho Wards, us owners Of the
steamboat Pacific, for balance due him for his
services rs captain. Tho Wards appealed and
mako the following points lst. The court erred
in not allowing the harbor master Of Chicago to
testify as to tho manner tho plaintiff managed
the boat In coming in and going out Of harbor
I'd. The declaration does not aver specially, that
the defendants were joint contractors or obligors,
crpayors. Sd Tho verdict was against evidence,
and should have been set aside Oh motion for n
new trial by defendants The testimony was
conflicting as to the value Of tho plaintiff ser.
vices. ranging from eco to si9s per mouth. Tho
verdict vas for aeou.sioo per month, Tho case
{1IN argued on Thursday by II. @. shumwuy for
spps!!sns1I ztneld for appellee.