Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1886-11-05
District Court DOings.

idiii'i utItt vi ldlt. E|NtentIN tnt
Esprit litigant" is at rest among our
people. The following matters, how
ever, may deserve passing notice:
In the case of Chehalis county,
plaintiff, VS.. Alexander Melville, W.
X. Melville and l.. o. Hamilton.
the defendants motion for new
trial was argued before Judge Hoyt
on the 10th of October, 1856, and d.
MED. Judgment was entered on the
verdict i'll favor of the county for $3,-
OOO and costs. Notice Of appeal to the
Supreme Court was made Ballard
and Hartman for defendants, Porter
and Scotield for plaintiff. This cause
grew out of the robbery Of Wells.
Fargo 4 Cumpany's express, near
Montesano, in June, 1885. Alexander
Melville, Il son of Mrs. l.. q. Hamilton.
was arrested charged with participa-
ton III the robbery He was taken
before Il Justice of the Peace at Mon
tesano and ordered to enter into a
rccOgnlzancc in the sum of $4,000 to
answer at the next term of the District
Court for said county. 1t is claimed
that he gave such rccognizancc, with
the other defendants rs suicties, and
that the bond or rccognizance with
the other papers in the case were
sealed up and given to the Clerk of
the Court at Montcsano, in August.
1883, and by the Clerk placed in his
private safe. However that may be,
the papers disappeared before the con-
vening OF the Court III September,
1885. This suit was upon the bond,
alleged to he lost. The defendants
claim that the original bond or rccog-
nizancc was void in law.
James o. Gagnon vs.. Wells, Fargo
Company. This is an action by plain
tiff to recover reward offered by de-
fendant for the arrest and conviction
of any person concerned in the rob
berry of any of their express messen-
gers. William Vaugcr was arrested
by plaintiff, Il deputy sheriff OF Che
halls county, June 3, 1885, without
warrant, charged with the robbery of
the defendants express messenger be-
tween Elma and Montesano, the day
previous. He Was convicted of the
oiicnsc. Plaintiff demanded the re-
ward, but the company paid it to one
Thomas Shamly, who made the COM
plaint on which Vauger was exam
incd before the magistrate. Plaintiff
brought suit against tho company.
The Court held on these facts that
plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
G. w. Hartman for plaintiff, and SEQ
field & Bignold for defendant. This
cause will probably go to the Supreme
Court, as the plaintiffs counsel is sure
he is right.
Jane Peterson VS.. Glenn Peterson
action for divorce; both parties want
decree. Cause referred to nj. A. |
Root, Esq, to take testimony and re-
port to the Court. The referee set
the hearing at North Cove, Pacific
county, November Is, 1856.
Jane Peterson vs.. Glenn Peterson.
Application for 5000 further suit
money on part of plaintiff. The no
tice of hearing the application was
served by the attorney. G. NJ. Savage
for plaintiff and C. w. Hartman for
defendant. Argued to the Court that
under Section TAG of the Code an at
tOrney in the case could not make
such service. The objection was sus-
tanned by the Court, and the service
held insufficient. This being a new
rule in the district, parties will govern
themselves accordingly.
NEW SUITS.
Rice b. Shelton VS.. J. NJ. Robinson,
N. s. Porter and J. w. Robinson, law
partners, under the firm name of Rob
p f.