Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1888-11-29
In THE DISTRICT COURT.
The Argument Begun hut not fin
1shed in the n. ?. Land
FAX MatteI
A Verdict for the planrl& Rend-
ered IN the 4. II. Elaspell
Land Case
The Jury Fails to Ionvlct the
Principals IN tie hMoure
Liquor Case
District COUt.

District Couf.
On motion of Jno. S. wilson, A. j. T.,
Voigt was admitted to pracice on certif-
cate from supreme court ofWisconsin.
In the Glaspell-N. P. + R. Co., case
the plaintiffs case in briefwas finished
and is now pending on 4 otion by the
defendent to strike out l;he evidence
relative to consummation bf purchase;
and for instruction to the jlry to render
verdict in favor of defe dant on the
ground that plaintiff has hiled to sus-
tam the allegations of lis complaint.
The decision of the motion was withheld
until opening of court thisnornlng.
The call for tomorrow is: Nos. 49, SO,
90, 80, 40 to 176 with l79
MORNING Session.
In the case of Glaspell VS.. N. ?. r. r.
Co., the plaintiff moved or leave to re-
open his case and introduce further tes-
timony in support of his ,ause of action.
The motion was granta, and Geo. w.
Board, assistant land Commissioner of
the n. p. r. R., was called to the stand
and testified as to the Iignature Of M.
l.. Knowlton, and Hermit nn Trott to the
contract for the purchase of the lands in
controversy. The plaintiff then was re
called, and stated that 10 signed GER
tain contract for the purchase Of land
from the defendant. The plaintiffs s coun-
Gil then offered the contrl let in evidence,
to which offer defendant objected on the
ground that the authority Of Hermann
Trott, their general land agent, was not
produced in writing; that there
is variance between the date of the
contract and the date ale sed by plaintiff
as to when the contract vas made; and
because of the variance between the al
cation that the purchase was made
through defendants agbnts, NickeUs,
Wilbur & Nichols, while the contract ap-
pears to have been made by the defend
ants general land agent. This objection
was Overruled.
The defendant then moved the court
for continuance because the re-opening
of the case has produced such evidence
that the defendant could not safely pro
ceed to trial without further preparation.
Motion denied.
Mr. Watson made motion for continu-
ance in the case of Jorgen J. Gram VS.
The N. p. r. r. Co. Motion opposed by
Mr.. Glaspell, attorney for plaintiff.
Motion denied.
In the case of Glaspell VS. N. P. Il. R.
Co., the plaintiff again rested at S o'clock
p. m. when the defendent's counsel again
moved the court to instruct the jury to
return a verdict for the defendant on the
ground that the plaintiff has not proved
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against the defendant. After argu-
ment the motion was denied.
Geo. Lippert and John herman were
admitted to citizenship.
THIS MORNING.
The case of A. H. Glaspell against the
N. p. r. r. Co., still occupies the atten-
tion of the court. The plaintiff ha1 ug
rested the first witness called by the
defendant was Albert H. Glaspell, the
plaintiff. The deposition Of Dwight l..
Wilbur was read to the jury, and the ex-
amipation of Jno. J. Nichols was not
completed at noon.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
In the Glaspell-N. ?. r. r. case, the
testimony of John J. Nichols, George
Board, assistant chief clerk general land
department of the Northern Pacific r.
r. Co. and Herman Trott, formerly gen.
eral land agent of the defendants, closed
the case of the defendants. Heber Nc
Hugh and S. l.. Glaspell were recalled
in rebuttai, and testimony closed.
MORNING SESSION
H. II. Hall. one of the jurors on the
Glaspell- n. P. RR. case, having received
telegram that his wife is about to die,
was excused from further consideration
of the case and permitted to go to his
home, the remaining II jurors to deter
mine and decide the case, by stipulation
of counsel. ,f 5r..ss -
The jury in the Glaspell-N P. r. r.
Co., returned sealed verdict giving plain
tiff verdict for $12,545.43. - !
In the case of the Territory of Dakota
VS. G. J. Sturgeon, on indictment for sell |
ing Intoxicating liquors without license,
plea of not guilty entered by counsel for
defendant and case set for trial for tomor-
row. Same disposition was made of the
case of Territory of Dakota VS. Daniel |
Wearing, on similar indictment
Martin Spcar1 and YOham Heinrich |
Bresirs were admitted to citenship.
The case of the n. P. r. r. Co., vs. w. |
E. Brewer treasurer of LaMoure county |
was next taken up. The argumentin This
case will occupy the entire day. J. NJ,