Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1889-03-14
DEFENDANTS DAY.
The District Court Decides Two Cases
Against the Plaintiffs Dramatic
Episode. FL

4
the district court. All day was taker
up with two jury cases, both of which
| were decided against the plaintiffs
The first was the case of Smith VS.
Pisle and Smith. The suit was brought
to recover a certain amount Of wages
claimed by the plaintiff. Two of Abb.
lene's young limbs of the law were
given a chance to spread their orator
zeal wings. Frank Smalley elOcuted
for the plaintiff and S. S. Smith for de-
Tense. The jury deliberated for few
hours and decided that the defense had
the best case. ll
In the afternoon the case Of Mrs.
Cormack VS.. Broughton Bros. was
tried. Campbell and Crawford played
the Demosthenes act and quoted all
the eminent authorities from Coke and
Blackstone to Quinn. The case turned
upon the validity of certain note and
a contract for the sale of an organ.
After considerable amount of evidence
in which the case was discovered to be
extremely complicated and even in
spite of the plaintiffs ''private secre-
tary's" (D laudable efforts somewhat
difficult to understand, the jury took
hand and in fifteen minutes brought in
a verdict for the defendants.
This morning, George Hall, who had
dealt not wisely but too freely in the
juice OF the arsenic box and rain-water
barrel, was arraigned for selling
whisky. Hall held forth at Solomon
and was pulled by Sheriff NALL some
weeks ago. A dramatic episode took
place during the trial when one, Sher-
man, who v >sent to purchase liquor
that his testimony in the case might be
| used for the prosecution, astonished the
judge, jury and lawyers. Being asked
a question regarding the nature of the
drinkables he purchased, he said he had
the identical stuff and pulled out two
bottles of red liquid which he shook be-
fore the court. There threatened to be
a stampede, for everybody wanted to
get closer to the man that they might
examine the material. The actions
were hastily arrested as it flashed over
the minds of the participants how silly
such thing was and every one stopped
short. smacked his lips, turned around
and asked his neighbor what the stuff
was, processing total ignorance for him
self. The jury evidently knew what it
was for verdict of guilty was re-
turned.
w n King VS. j E Bonebrake: Con-
tinued.
Bank of Enterprise VS. W J Bell:
Continued.
H w Fields VS. M D Thisler: Con-
tinued.
Phillip Best Brewing Co Sc W CT
Rohrer: Judgment for plaintiff for
1856 and costs.
Same VS. same: Judgment for plain
tiff for $2,812 and costs.
S Mexican VS. III Brady & Co: Judg-
ment for plaintiff for 81 ,S21 and costs.
John Dunlavy, adm of estate of VIM
Short, deceased, VS. Miles and Medaris:
Dismissed.
G A Smith, ct al VS. E A Francis, ct
al: w w Wilson appointed guardian
for minor heirs and judgment rendered
as prayed for.
Kas Loan and Trust Co VS. II Rees:
Chicago Lumber Co allowed to file
answer.
Westerly Savings Bank VS. r N
Curtis, ct al: Judgment for the fol-
lowing parties: W Savings Blk, Sc, 705;
NJ Sheldon, $3.50; r d German, 3d.
637; Geo Forester, 81, 1914.
Smith Frazer Shoe Co VS. NJ B
Wright: Judgment for plaintiff for
$3.50 and costs.
CHI Fargo & Co VS. same: Judgment
for $50.
Lydia Amick VS. ] Miller, ct al: !
Motion to set aside sustained and case
reinstated except defendant.
J M Fisher VS. OtterStein: Judgment |
for plaintiff as per journal entry.
Hubbard & Co VS. Shockey & Snider: |
by agreement, judgment for plaintiff
for SIS.
Sheriff's sale in case of Coleman VS. |
liable confirmed and deed ordered.
o. l.. Thisler VS.. J. J. Miller: Yer
dict for defendant.
Same VS.. Same: Judgment rendered
for plaintiff for recovery of property |
and for defendant for costs.
Lebold, Fisher & Co. VS.. Hiram
Slayer, at al: Judgment for plaintiff |
of $50.
B. r. Able VS. John Bonfeld: Judg- |
ment for plaintiff for SO, 100 against |
Bonfield and Berry Bros.
Union Investment Co. VS.. c., K. &
W.: Jury called and evidence taken. |
This case is still on trial this afternoon. |
1t grows out of the difficulties aris-
ing in 1887 over the construction of the |
c. K. & W. r. R. through Richland |
Park east of the city.
&c Bender VS. John Lands: Trial by |
jury; verdict for defendant.
j G Binder VS. Sam'l Bender: Dis |
missed at the cost of the plaintiff.
Wakefield s. Hopkins VS. Abilene !
Board of Trade and ] M Hodge: Dis
missed at cost plaintiffs.
j A Medaris VS. G. FL Lebold: De- |
PENDANT given 80 days to file answer.
Ellsworth VS. Augustine: Dismissed |
at cost of plaintiff.
Henry Miller VS. Eliza Miller: Di-
vorce granted as prayed for, plaintiff |
to pay costs.
Lille NJ Lamb VS. Geo A Lamb: