Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1876-04-09
JsoN IloMnK COURT.
The stcponack W.. Pe,ak Ca.c..The
Plainltd Gets Away with the Oshe r
W0mans Baggage.

Editors Press and Dakotaian.
In my last communication referred you
to the case of Steponack Tvs. Petack, which
has been occupying the minds of the court
attorneys and Jurors since Saturday last.
Last evening concluded the argument ofthe
counsel w. s! Arnold closing, and the case
was then submitted to the jury upon the
following findings as follows, rs per agree
ment of attorneys: We, the jury sworn
and impanneled in the case Of Steponack
w. Petack, do hereby render our special
verdict and do find as follows, to-wlt:
First. That Vincent Steponack and An.
ME Steponack, his wife, holding in fee, did
on the 10th day of December. 1872, duly
grant, bargain, sell and convey the land dc
scribed in the complaint to one Annie Pc
tax, her heirs and assigns, by deed, duly
executed and acknowledged.
Second That both parties to t!.is action
claim the right to the land in controversy,
by, through and under the aforesaid deed
or grant
Third. That one Anna Fetak- lwho was
then the wife Of Joseph Petak, senior, and
the mother of Jos. H. Pctak this defend.
anD claiming to be the true and identical
grantee in. the aforesaid deed, did on the
22d day of March, 1873, by deed of that
date, grant, bargain and sell the same land
TO her husband, the aid,Jos. Petak, Sr.,
who by his deed of the Goth day of July,
1873, granted and sold the same to his son,
the said Jos. II. Petak, thi, defendant.
Fourth. That one Annie Pe,ak (who is
the daughter Of the aforesaid Vincent Ste
ponack and his said wife, and who had, on
the 5,h day Of ADeeembef, 1879 rin,ermaf-
RED with the said Joseph H.. Petak); also
claiming TO be the true and identical per-
sonage named as the grantee in the first
named deed, to.wit: That deed from Vim.
cent Steponack did. on the 25th day of
June, 1873, by her deed Of that date, grant,
bargain and sell the same land to her moth
er, Annie Steponack, this plaintiff in fee.
T Fifth. But we do further find that the
real aud identical person TO whom the said
Vincent Stepohack and Wife granted and
conveyed the said land, by the aforesaid
deed was and is Annie Petark, scAo ,oas Men
the ,cite Of Jos. H. Eetak, and that the 9TH
er woman claiming to be the grantee IN
said deed, had and has no right or title
whatsoever in or to said land.
Sixth. That she, the said Annie Pctak,
who was the wife Of Joseph Pctak, be-
came thereby the lawful owner, and the
right of possession, and the lawful seizure
Of, in and TO; TIC said land, as set out and
described in the complaint. ..-
Seventh. That on the 25th day of June
1873, when the deed from Annie Petak
the junior, TO this plaintiff was made and
delivered the land in dispute was in the &C.
tual possession OF Joseph Pctak, Sr.
claiming under q title adverse 10 that O
the said Annie Pctak, junior, to wit: claim
ing by. the deed from Annie Pelak, the
senior. dated 22d March, 1873, and upon the
facts the jury respectfully left the judgment
to the court.
The case was very ably handled by both
parties and has been one Of the most inter
est and important ever tried in Bon
Homme county. As 10 the title of the
Hand the jury found it to he in tho plaintiff,
from the facts submitted to them-through
the unanswerable argument of Mr.. Arnold
and it is the prayer ofstheiwholc people Of
Bon Homme county that the question be
forever at rest. The court is still in ses
sion this 5th day of April. the case of Cul
yer VS.. Bushnell being on trial The Judge
is doing all in HE wcr to crowd matters
to q close and save county expenses, and
We are In hopes that to-day will close ur
matters. nWill write you. .saEain as to an,
matters Of interest, and hope that all my
communications will find room in your val
nable paper. Yours.
/ 'SPRINoFIELD,"
/ ~,nu,ny,rv s,<N