River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1888-12-13
Proceedings of the Circuit Court at the
December Term, 1888.

presiding, Hon. E. B. Bundy, Judge.
E. J. Fitzgerald, Clerk; G. w. Cairns.
Deputy Clerk; G. A. Cross, Reporter;
Charles Smith, Dist. Attorney; B. II.
COrcoran, Sheriff; Lewis Guest, David
Rice and r. S. Robson, Deputy Sheriffs.
Jury called by the Clerk and thirty
jurors answered to their names. Two
were not served, being absent from
the county. Three of the jurors drawn
were excused on account of being
over age, and one as druggist.
Query: Why can't our County SUI
pervisors be little more careful in
making up the list of Jurors! Surely
there are enough competent aud quail
fed voters in the county to select from
without having three or four jurors
on each PANEL who are disqualified
from some cause, deafness, lover
age" cant understand the Ian.
guage," or are engaged in some occu-
patton which exempts them.
Court called the civil calendar. The
criminal calendar was then called by
the court.
The liquor cases appealed from JUS
tice Court of the city OF River Falls
were all demurred to by COUNSEL for
defendants, and were taken up and
the demurrers argued by counsel. The
grounds Of the demurrer as stated
therein was that the complaint was
insufficient in law to constitute a cause
of action. The counsel for defendants
introduced Sec. Chap. 296 Laws of
1885, which amends Sec. 1850 OF Re-
vised Statutes as amended by Chap. 80
Laws of 1882, and claimed that the
law as amended inferentially required
the complaint to contain the words
"Or permit" after the word "license,
and the Court sustained the demurrer,
saying the point was technical but
probably law, which disposes of thirty
one cases on the criminal calendar.
~. IL DLdiG anu L. CiAAi AOA NC
lendants, c. Smith for the State. The
prosecutions will be brought again,
we understand.
State of Wisconsin VS.. Charles ID.
Barringer; assault with intent to COM
init rape. z. ID. Pierce who prose-
cuted the case in the court below APP
peared and stated that the complaining
witness had left the state and her
attendance could not be procured at
this term of court. The Court di-
rected nolle to be entered. j. w.
Hancock and Smith & Vannatta Tor
defendant.
State of Wisconsin VS.. Frank Ros-
sell; bastardy. Continued on affidavit
OF defendant. Defendant to recognize
for $500 for his appearance at next
term. r. II. Start appeared for state,
Smith & Vannatta for defendant.
State of Wisconsin VS.. A. NJ. Baker;
keeping house of i'll fame. When this
case was called the District Attorney
stated to the Court that the defendant
was gwen permission to go out TO
procure bail for her appearance at this
term and that she was still looking
for 1t. c. Smith, Dist. Attorney, for
state; F. L. Perrin for defendant.
State OF Wisconsin VS.. Edwin Kim
berly and Otis johnson; charged with
burglary. c. Smith, Dist. Atty, for
state; F. L. Perrin appointed by the
Court for defendants.
J. 6. Keith VS.. Charles Huber. This
case involved the examination of a
long account and by consent of parties
was referred to E. II. Ives, Esq, to
try and determine. j. w. Hancock
and Smith & Vannatta for plaintiff; A..
Cumbacker for defendant.
Patrick Maloney VS.. John During
Judgment for nonsuit entered. 4. j.
Kinney Tor plaintiff; Smith & Van
malta for defendant.
Vim. Catura VS.. J. 5. McKeen and
John Goggin. This was an action for
attachment in which certain livery
stock was attached and the Court or
dered the sale of the property attached
at the June term. Tried by the Court
and judgment for plaintiff for S5o7. Is
entered E. Il. ManwarIng for plain
tiff; smith Yannatta and j. ". Han
cock for defendants.
Bank OF River Falls vs.. German
American Insurance Company. Con-
tinued on affidavit of defendants at
torney with cost of plaintiff. Smith
Il Vannatta for plaintiff; Z. Il. Start
for defendant.
Galla!in Valley National Bank VS.
John c. Foster This action was
brought on a promissory note and a
verdict directed by the Court for the
plaintiff for Sl52I.57. A. Cumbacker
and n. 2. Haugen for plaintiff; Smith
& Vannatta for defendant.
Ii. f. Tousley vs.. Timothy Harring-
ton. Tried by jury. This action was
brought to recover on a promissory
note. The defendant denied the exc
cution of the note, it being signed
with a mark and without witness.
The plaintiff introduced testimony TO
prove defendant directed the drawing
of the note and requested The witness
to sign it for him Defendant in
troduced testimony to show that the
defendant was intoxicated and not in
a condition to do business at the time
the note was said to be given. The
jury returned a verdict for plaintiff
for $3.50. Smith & Vannatta for
plaintiff; A. Cumbacker for defend
ant.
Maggie Y. Ellison vs.. Jacob Messer-
smith. A jury was empanneled and
the case was on trial when the Court
adjourned Tuesday evening. Wednes-
day the testimony was closed and the
case submitted to the jury about three
O'Clock P. n. and the jury have not