River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1889-12-19
Circuit Court Proceedings.
1cONrINuEp. ]

II
S25S.lS and the damages at six cents
A. COmbacker and j. w. Hancock fol-
plaintiff and j. s. White for defend
ant.
Frank Till VS.. Charles g.. Hawkes.
1 An affidavit for continuance filed by
the defendant and motion for continu.
ance granted with costs.
State VS.. John Gordon. Charged
| with larceny. On motion of Smith &
| Vannatta, associate counsel with Dist.
| Attorney, a nOlle was entered.
State vs.. Franz ROssell. Adultery
Affidavit for continuance by defend.
ant. Motion for continuance granted.
State VS.. Augustus Ruley. Assault
With intent to do great bodily harm.
Nolle entered.
In case of the matter of Will of
Hattie Boutwell,, Calvin Lewis. pro.
p0nent, VS.. Z. A. Boutwell,, contest
ant. This case was an appeal from an
order of the County Court admitting
the will of Hattie Boutwell, to probate.
1t was claimed by the contestant that
the testator was not in a condition
mentally to make will. Proof was
submitted to show her condition at
the time the will was executed. The
evidence was somewhat contradictory,
but it was quite clear as to her being
in very poor health for some time be-
fore and at the time she executed the
will; that on the night before the will
was drawn she was SO i'll the neighbOrs
were called in and her physician sent
for. The jury rendered "A verdict in
favor of the contestant. This is the
first contested will case ever tried in
the circuit court of Pierce county and
the first one ever tried by his honor,
Judge BuIdy. 1t perhaps is proper
20 state that there was much more
evidence introduced in trying the ap-
peal than was submitted to the county
court. F. l.. Perrin for prOpOnent.
Smith & Vannatta for contestant
Frank Till VS.. ID. III. Tandy and Chas.
A. Hawkes.. Tried by jury. This was
an action to foTeclOse lien on prop
erty in River Falls for material used
furnished by plaintiff i'll construction
OF the brick kilns near the city. No
defense. A verdict directed by the
court for $27I93. Smith & Vannatta
for plaintiff, F. l.. Perrin for defend
ants.
John F. johnson VS.. Gilbert Forseth.
Action for Islander. Affidavit for
change of venue. Case sent to Polk
county for trial. X. Ii. Start for plain
If. Smith & Vannatta for defendant.
John E. Brown VS.. Clarence Tyler,
.. Tyler, Will Tyler aud Frank Moran.
Tried by jury. This was an action OF
trespass, sent from justice court to
circuit court on a question of title.
Plaintiff claimed that defendants ell
erred ON his premises, described as lol
) in section 9 town "A range IL west.
aud took down and carried away a Ger
tain fence, and trampled down tn
grass and shrubbery growing ON saiu
land. The defendants claimed Ia hav
utle and possession of the land II
question, claiming to hold IL as tbs
neirs at law of Mrs. Jul.ette A. Tyler
and also by continued possession fUi
he past fifteen or twenty years by
occupancy and cultivation of some
portion of the land. Plaintiff claimed
title by virtue of a deco from one ID,
vid Young and by poss session as ad
Joining his cultivated farm, and that
ne had purchased ii SO that the timber
growing thereon should serve as a
brake water to prevent the flOOd-wOOd
from Lake Pepin drifting back on his
.ul.ivated land, and from the teSti-
mony it appeared this was the primer
pal use plaintiff had made of the land
IN question. The case was submitted
To the jury on the question of plain
uff's possession of the land in contro-
versy. The verdict of the jury was in
answer to the following interrogatOry,
to-wit: Did Adam Brown, plaintiff
vendor. enter into possession of the
land on which the fence in question
IS built, under claim of title thereto
exclusive of any other right, and afte
April IL. 1865, he or plaintiff as his
LInued possession thereof thereafter
Ten consecutive years! We answer
yes. j. $. White for plaintiff, a
Combacker and W. Vannatta for de-
PENDANTS.
Michael Fritz VS.. Emeline Fritz.
action foI divorce. Tried by the court
Decree OF divorce granted. j. w.
Hancock for plaintiff.
Hans RollOfson VS.. Arne Thorson.
Tried by jury. This action was brought
TO recover damages for tearing down
fence built by plaintiff along tue
north line of the highway in section 4
IN the town of Ell PasO. The defend
ant as OVerseer of highways removed
the fence from the travelled track,
claiming it was an obstruction to the
highway. 1t appeared from the testi.
mOny that some twenty-one years ago
"a. Of haa tn laI nj
highway on the quarter line of said
section; that but one of the board
signed the order; that the road was
opened for travel the next year and
has been used by the public ever since;
that the travelled track was near and
upon the north line of the highway as
laid out by the supervisors, and that
the fence of the plaintiff was put up on
that portion of the travelled track
which was on the north line of the
highway. The fence in question was
two rods north of the quarter line as
run and established by the county sur
veyor. A question of law was raised
as to which was the legal highway.
the one laid by the town board or the
track travelled by the public. To save
"a ntM LIidl k1C COUAS aAANNNNN q WI
diet for the plaintiff assessing his
damages at eleven dollars, the amount
proved, and also verdict for the
defendant of no cause of action and
took the case under advisement, briefs
to be furnished by the plaintiffs and
defendants attorneys. A. Combacker.
Capt. Start and Judge Hancock for
plaintiff. Smith & Vannatta for de-
PENDANT.
Albert Drewke VS.. j. ID. Whitelaw
ct al. This case which was set for
trial on Monday afternoon was with
drawn.
c. Y. Denniston VS.. P. d. Pierce,
garnishee. Appeal from justice court.
The case was dismissed on motion of
defendant, the court holding that the
Justice lost jurisdiction by not adjourn.
ing the garnishee suit when be ad-
journed the principal suit. A. Com
hacker and J. W. Hancock for plaintiff,
P. ID. Pierce for defendant.
Warren A. Reed VS.. Daniel j. Dill.
Plaintiff sued the defendant in this
case to recover pay for support OF the
children of James Boles, deceased.
the plaintiff being now the husband of
the widow of the deceased and the
defendant the guardian of the chill
dren. After taking the testimony OF