Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1883-02-13
SUITS COMMENCED,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT SINCE THE
LAST TERN.


lace.-This is a case wherein plaintiffs
claim 1880 for services as the attor-
neys Of defendants in the following
suits, tO-wit:
John King ct al. VS.. c. J. johnson.
Two suits.
J. S. Wallace ct al. VS.. Coleman
NJ. Co.
Corsair VS.. Hidden Treasure.
Holly VS.. Cargill millsite.
Protection vs.. Coleman.
Lowe and Wallace VS.. Coleman
NJ. Co.
Butler VS.. Coleman.
J. w. Mishler ct al. VS.. Coleman
NJ. Co.-Two suits.
Butler VS.. Oregon.
Blackfoot VS. Coleman.
Elsie claim VS.. Alabama millste..-
Two suits.
J. w. Mishler VS.. c. J. johnson.
J. w. Mishler VS.. The Vienna Con-
solidated NJ. Co.
J. S. Wallace ct al. VS.. Vienna Con-
solidated NJ. Go.
Protection VS.. Alturas.
w. II. Watt ct al. VS.. Coleman
NJ. Co.
Savage Fraction VS.. Oregon.
Also, for like services in defending
the following suits: F. J. Scott ct al.
VS.. J. B. Haggin; c. J. johnson VS.. J.
b. Haggin; and j. S. Wallace VS..
Jos. w. Mishler.
All of the above services were in
protecting the Solace Mining Com
pany's property, in Smiley gulchin the
Sawtooth range, in which said defend
ants are jointly interested.
Plaintiffs allege that the said Wal
lace retained them, and that he was at
that time the manager and superin-
tcndent Of said property.
Plaintiffs demand judgment fol
s?,O5O balance due, and costs.
TIE ANSWER.
In their answer the defendants de.
ny that they ever retained Messrs
Ganahl & Vineyard, or that these
, gentlemen ever did any service 70
defendants at their request in Ia o
=, the suits mentioned in the complaint
They admit that the plaintiffs wer
retained by J. S. Wallace in six o
the suits mentioned in tn
, complaint; but they claim that tn
:. papers in respect to said suits wer
mostly drawn by other parties, am
the services plaintiffs rendered therein
:, were small, and occupied but fe,
=. hours, and said suits were all settle
or dismissed without trial.
!, They also allege that j. b. Haggi
had no interest in said last-named &C
tons or the subject matter thereof, c
the mining ground to which they re
i lated, and did not individually or vii
. the defendant Wallace, retain or err
- ploy the plaintiffs therein, or in an
= of them.
:. The defendants also admit that tn
- plaintiffs did some service for J.
Haggin in two of the suits mentione
\ in said complaint, but said service col
=, sisted of putting in answers in tn
actions.
The defendants deny that the plail
" tiffs' services were reasonably wor,
- $4,000, or any sum over $3.50, whit
~ last mentioned sum has been pa
." them.
40 The defendants claim that there
- misjoinder of cause of action, al
10 pray that said action be dismisse
~ ~ that plaintiffs take nothing, and tn
~ defendants have judgment for costs.
-, r. Z. Johnson is attorney for plat
>" titfs; James II. Beatty for dcfendan
SUIT FOR BREACH OF PROMIs
y Catharine Goulett vs.. Edward Sto
8" The plaintiff in this suit alleg
,. that in May, 1881, in the town
=" Broadford, the defendant promised
- marry plaintiff in November, ISIS
~ that plaintiff has always been willir
" and still is, to marry defendant, l.
'' that the latter persistently refuses
marry her. She therefore prays
ne Judgment for $4,000 and for costs
lh' suit.
1t In his answer the defendant {
l.. .~,o,>lo:n% hooo~co - IL