River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1888-06-14
COURT PROCEEDINGS.

AObbcuiHSS III 1lICuAl 0OulI lOL
Pierce county at the June term, begun
and held at the Court House in Els
worth, June llth, 1888:
Judge Bundy came by the afternoon
train and opened court at 3 O'Clock p.
NJ. The following officers of the court
were in attendance: 4. J. Fitzger-
aid. Clerk; G. w. Cairns, Deputy
Clerk; C. a. Cross. Reporter; a. Cook.
Dist. Atty; b. III. Corcoran, Sheriff;
Lewis Guest, Simon Grant, and Moses
Denham, Deputy Sheriffs.
The usual number of attorneys were
in attendance.
The following persons Gurors) were
admitted 20 citizenship: August Cor
des, +. W. Haverlandt, Louis Ras-
musOn. Andrew o. Ulvind.
The list of jurors was then called by
the Clerk and all answered except
Charles Teal, engineer, aud J. ). Glenn
ents, both of Prescott and both ex-
empt under the statutes. and Oscar
Thomas of Maiden Rock, who was
excused on account of being hard of
hearing. Henry WattersOn, who was
in attendance, was excused on account
of deafness.
The calendar was then called by the
court and the following cases were
continued:
Gallatin Nat. Bank VS.. John c. Fos-
ter. n. P. Haugeu and A. Combacker
for plaintiff; Smith & Vannatta for
defendant.
Bank of River Falls VS.. German Am.
Insurance Co. Continued on motion
of defendant. Smith d Vannatta for
plaintiff; r. II. Start for defendant.
The criminal calendar was called
and disposed of in part as follows:
State VS.. Riley VandefOrd, larceny
of team of horses. Nolle entered by
Dist. Attorney.
State vs. Frank Reynolds, larceny of
team of horses. Defendant not in
custody.
State VS.. Archie Bradshaw; abusive
and obscene language. Nolle entered
by Dist. Atty.
State VS.. Chas. ID. Barringer; at
tempt to commit rape. Continued for
the state.
State VS.. John Goggin; enbezzle-
ment of wood; Continued for State.
State VS.. Maggie Moore and Carrie
MaZurie; larceny. Nolle entered by
Dist. Atty.
A jury was empaneled in the case of
Mcdonald Mfg. Co. vs.. Mat Elertson,
Edward Elertson and Peter Elertson,
as Elertson Brothers & j. G. Wald.
This action was brought 20 recover
on & note of 5000, given by defend
ants TO plaintiff for a threshing ma
chine purchased in 1884, and run by
defendants in the fall of 1884 and 1885.
The defendants claimed the machine
was not suitable for the purposes for
which it was purchased, and therefore
claimed breach of warranty. The
plaintiffs set up written contract sign.
ed by the defendants at the time of
purchase, in which the plaintiffs war
ranted the machine to do good work,
but the terms of the warranty requir-
ed the purchaser to give written no.
tice to the local agent and also to the
company, at Fon du Lac, of any de-
tects in the working of the machine
within ten days after the first use of
the machine. The court held that the
plaintiffs were bound by a general
warranty, which required them to fur
nish a machine constructed of good
and suitable material and capable of do
ing the work for which it was intend
ed. and so instructed the jury. The
case was ably and elOquently summed
up by the counsel ON both sides.
1t was submitted to the jury about 4
o'clock p. NJ. on Tuesday. and after
being out about three hours returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for 1913 ~.
II. 4, s.E II.aKRa pgsNn1 md
p. Cady, of Minneapolis, for pltts and
Smith & Vannatta fOr def'tS.
a jury was empaneled IN the case
of VIM. III. York VS.. John Dudley, on
Tuesday evening and excused until 9
O'Clock Wednesday morning, and the
court took up the case Of
VIM. Catura VS.. j S, McKeen and
John Goggin. Tried by the court
This was an action of attachment in
which certain livery property sold by
the plaintiff to the defendants was
attached 10y the plaintiff. One of the
defendants having suddenly left the
county without leave and forgetting
to bid his friends good bye, the plain
tiff swore out an attachment and
seized the property to secure the
DN-N--~'
The plaintiff also charged fraud and
Misrepresentation on the part of the
defendants as to the real estate owned
by them at the time OF the sale. The
defendant McKeen traversed the aili-
davit of the plaintiff and denied the
existence of any partnership, as
claimed by plaintiff. A large number
of witnesses was called upon both sides
and the court after hearing the testi-
mony found that there had been fraud
and misrepresentation on the part OF
the defendants and sustained the at
tachment. Z. b. Manwaring. of
Menomonie. for pl'ff, and j. B. Han
cock and Smith & Vannatta for def.
The court has been occupied nearly
all day to-day--W ednesday-with the
York VS. Dudley case. 1t was given to
the jury about O'Clock p. NJ. who
have not yet returned verdict.
A jury WAS empaneled in the case of
b. NJ. Dopkins VS.. Ed. Barg, Oluf
Barg and Curtis johnson which will
be tried tomorrow.