The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-10-14
DONE IN THE COURTS.
The Sheriff Sued For Damages
on Attachment.
Dessnss That the killing " Kauf was
Accidsntaa-Indian Gina on TRIAL
New saits- Blstesr.

A damage suit against Sheriff John II.
McGraw is now on trial before Judge STRAIT
ton. It ID the case Of Hexter, May q Co.,
who claim 5000 damages for the seizure
OF goods by the sheriff November q, 1889.
The plaintiffs aileRe that their stock of
stoves, tinwars and . general line Of hard
ware were wrOngfully taken possession OF
~ defendant and con verted to his own
use.
In answer the defendant, Sheriff Nc
Graw, states that the goods taken posses
SION OF were reasonably worth the sum Of
S,BO.0 81; that he Was acting in the capacity
OF sheriff Of King county, and that these
goods were the property Of Haines d
Schroeder. and that the creditors Of Haines
q Schroeder assigned their claims against
that firm to Charles H. Kittinger. who at
tached the goods in controversy, and on
whose attachment he (McGraw). as sheriff.
took possession OF the goods Of Hexter,
May q Co.. which he levied upon Is conn
manded IN the writ of attachment De-
fendant further AYERS that on January IS,
1880. Judgment was rendered against
Haines 4 Schroeder in favor of Charles III.
kittinger Tor the sum of s.. 19l.44, with i'm
terest and costs. and that an execution was
issued, and that he advertised and sold the
goods at public auction. IS required by law.
In the meantime Holbrook. Merrill 4
Shelton and the Merchants National bank
Of Seattle brought actions against Haines
& Schroeder for $1,741.21 and $666.2l re-
spectivsly. and attached their goods for
those amounts.
Defendant also states that the only claim
or title which Hextsr, May & Co. could
have to these goods was by virtue of pre-
tended bill of sale dated November %, 1859,
by which Haines a Schroeder purported to
convey the goods to them; that the bill OF
sale was fraudulent and void a. against de-
fendant and Haines q Schroeder's cred
itors; that Haines 4 Schroeder were
then wholly insolvent, and were owing
about $4,000. and were dishonesty con-
spring to defraud all of their creditors ex-
cept Hexter. May & Co. by means of this
pretended bill of sale; that the goods men-
toned in this bill of sale were largely in
excess Of the amount of the indebtedness
Of Haines 4 Schroeder to that firm. and
that it was given to enable them to obtain
an unjust and corrupt advantage over all
OF their creditors except Hextcr, May 4 Co.
The hearing Of testimony consumed ell
Of the afternoon, and the trial is still pend
ing and will probably occupy the greater
part Of today.
LEO WILKES Oh TRIAL roR huRDEH.
The case OF Leo Wilkes was heard in
Justice Humes' court yesterday on defend
ants demurrer to the Indictment. and the
demurrer being oyerruied, Wilkes entered
aplea Of not guilty Of granddaughter Is
charged. Wilkes O6ense was the fatal
shooting Of George Haul June 2l Wilkes
was ct the time keeping bar at the Eur
Quelle saloon. Haul entered the saloon
and called for glass Of bser. and then
asked HHkes wat ne wouid 90 Il the
=. Dssl g ms ~. iv ~, 49, uleM pls-
-. .. ). 80 oa- ~ -, 80. ssv :,
:. -" ~. ~. = .:. -. $3.50 psy "''
'as s s:41s' 1ns a'.se ...e 49, 49,.
uss - aS ... s.' I w;,S. eI.ou
80. 49, sI~.s.. ..s:s $3.50
go go "a, ~: a.s :. -. p 1880, s'n
s ~.,u WAS sss'''s = = w. sssAaA
,~n,.~ nv.
r-s:.. r.. 49,, ..:... -.
. sll'' III W.. nu,ui ~ slle
III. - - e. o.n0 os
81 $500 :. s-. ..,.
s,I.-s.H~ Ps@ $3.50! -
= sa 80 r w. :. rns. :" ~ 4nu,sn
49,. A. ~ !. = ~ WIN
- :. n.;,,;. :. .,sr - ps.. ~
- ss
's oAp - eano
- - 80 -. 80 49,:
:. Nv, - -" A - :. @u 90. ~
- -. L ..s.' ~ ..,s
s-.s~s =. .t~r-.4f., 1 o.y -. o.aue
suu vys -. 49, ~. e@a anu oouy ~
noaal1s u saM ..om s wSn Ieau re-
~ IN, s,as.s,e ~ ~. -. s-.. saasu
.'S 800, -, 80
~ VAC o nv sAeos0>A S sAAoS''
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF HOP CONTRACT.
Suit was instituted yesterday against ].
B. White by Heidenheimer & Luce to COM
pei him to deliver to them 5000 pounds of
hops contracted for at fifteen cents q
pound. Plaintiffs allege that they advanced
defendant $640 to pay for picking the hops
and that the hops were to have been de-
livered to them, but that White not only
refused to deliver the hops to them. but
sold the greater portion thereof to other
parties. Heidenheimer 4 Luce further
state that they had contracted with third
party to sell him the hops and that by rea-
son of the failure OF defendant to deliver
the hops as agreed to they were compelled
to go into the market and buy other hops
at the present market price of at least
thirty-four cents per pound. and therefore
by reason of said breach of contract and
defendants failure to deliver the hops
plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum
OF nineteen cents pound on the entire
R0QO hounds of hons which a0prepatpS