The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-05-03
COURT.HOUSE LOCALS.
4 Divorce Suit that Promises Some Sen
satiOnal Developments.
A $40, 600 Suit Against the City-The
Union Railway vs.. The O., a.
and 1. for $40. .ooo-Petition
for Removal OF a
Guardian.

sylvester Johnson has qualified as guardian OF
the sum OF 81 l.o0o.
In the case against Frederick and Henrietta
BucheIt for receiving stolen goods, Judge Norton
yesterday found the cefendants guilty Mr. Win
ter, attorney for defendants, found a fiaw In the
Indictment, and tled motion for new trial.
Firman Stout on behalf of sophfa Brown. Of
unsound mind. has filed 6 suit against Jes se
Wright 10 have him removed from his position ss
guaIdisn OF sophis Broxn, For cause il Is al
food, clothing, etc, Tor said ward 70 pay taxes On
property and TO look after her properly.
BY an aereement OF the creditors OF willIkm B.
Dickson, William Martz, as assignee. VIII t0-mor-
row make transfer of number Of pieces Of prop-
erty TO Mary A. Dickson. mother of the Dickson
brothers. in lieu of her claim against the firm for
$1,000, Mrs. Dickson holds notes secured by mort
gage for the full amount, and these are due in a
few days To avoid the costs OF the suit the credi-
tors have agreed 10 the transfer by the assignee.
Thomas Irwin has fed suit against the city and
Potenta Ranser for damages, sslleging that at
some period Of time since the beginning OF 1855
plaintiff, while walking along at night at the cor.
gutter over which loose boards had been placed
One leg was broken, aud $500 were ex-
pended for medical services. Plaintiff was
confined TO bed for unknown mum Der of wee Ks
and suffered the usual mental and bodily an
guish, etc. Demand is made for $1,000 The
amount OF repetitions in the psrt!culs lsrizine Of
facts, dates and descriptions.
In support of his motion for a new trial George
W. Wagner has alleged that he was surprised by
plaintiffs testimony. and files the affidavit OF
Hattie Keely, of Columbus, showing that she is a
material witness Tor him, and that ne could not
procure her attendance at the time of the
trial This was the suit in which Mary
D. Winter recovered q, $50 judgment against
Wagner lsst week, the judgment being the value
wagner under an seree%ent wiIh MTs wnte9 ~
and which he afterwsrd turned over 10 Mrs CLARK
on compromise OF breach Of promise suit.
Hattie Keely in her affidavit states that a
tain occasion she heard Mrs. Winter say she had
received $50 in full satisfaction of her claim
against Wagner for the lot
The Indianapolis Union Railway Company has
fled suit IN the Circuit Court against the C. III.
and ]. Road, on an account The complaint sets
out st lenehth its ownership Of The Union tracks
and the depot. These are in use by twelve roads
entering the city, five OF which are termed con
nen snae the er Nav & fas aso Ian sI
lease, controlled the Belt Road. Prior
to that date the through freight
not be carried over the Union tracks without
great inconvenience 10 the roads and 10 the pubic
and with great danger 10 Life and limb To avoid
the delays and Inconvenience the roads ceased
their of the Union tracks for the freight bus-
Dess and used the Belt Road for transfer around
1efused 1eS " put abandon @ the M ano nss d hose es
Union track According TO the contract
with plaintiff defendant was TO pay certain rent
ais for using the tracks ana the depot which are
summed up as follows: For the interest rental"
S6,2Co; for expenses in operating the Union
tracks and the depot 81 23S o. for through freight
ovsr the Union tracks, So i67i7: total si7 sos a
Demans and refusal is alleged and the Complaint
winds up with demand for $4,000. With the
complaint is series OF interr0gatories to be an
swered by the c.. II and I. folks IS TO the num-
Der OF cars hauled over the road from April 50 70
date.
A cross complaint was FLED yesterday hy John
Nixon in the suit against MIN by his wife, Ma
linda for divorce. The story is not told entirely
by the cross-complsint. and for full understand
the history of suits heretofore filed. As far back
as lsl1 Nixon and vile made deed OF their farm
Of loo acres 10 their son William, taking .
note for Sc COO, secured by mortgage
ON the farm. This mortgage was never recorded.
snd after a few months il disappeared. Nixon
searched Tor il, and after being satisfied that II
lish the mortgage aud collect the interest. This
resulted In a judgment for g. 900, and in q short
daughters Of John Nixon. the plaintiff Execution
was issued and the farm offered for sale by
the sheriff. which bid In by Nixon's
attorney for the assigDees of the judgment The
day Tor redemption being passed the Sherifss
deed was made, and then came another suit for
possession, damages for retention, etc. which re-
suited in judgment for plaintiffs In The same
year Mrs Nixon filed suit against John Nixon for
divorce in the Circuit Court. but a cornpromfse
of the matter was offered which was so reasonable
that the attorneys for the plaintiff insisted upon
its acceptance by their client. who. however. did
not so view the matter. and so the case was
allowed 10 stand. the original complaint being
gtill on file in the Circuit Court and me case pend
ing. About two weeks ago another suit was filed
by Mrs. Nixon In Boom ?. superior Court. in
which numker OF charges were made and in
which $500 alimoDy was ash ed, mention Of
which suirwas made at the Il me in the senti-
nel. To this complaint John Nixon
pleads the pendeDcy of the first suit in the Cir
cnit Court and files his cross complaint to tue
original suit brought by his wife against him. In
this CT oss mplsint ne charges that the note and
mortgage given by William mis- son. referred TO in
the fore going was. by conspiracy and with fraud
uient intent on The part OF william and his
mother, abstrsc cted and destroyed or hidden The
proposed compromise is also alleged, as well as
the refusal Of MIS-. Nixon 10 acceptit.