Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1890-03-13
District Court.
THURSDAY.

THURSDAY.
Most of the day was occupied by the
case of D. w. Howard VS.. the United
Brethren church, an effort to recover
money paid to the church for Santa Fe
right of way through the church's lot,
Howard and Finley having held a
mortgage on the property. Still on
trial.
In the divorce case of Efie Ham
mond against John F. Hammond di-
vorce was granted as asked for.
FRIDAY.
A large audience was in attendance
on district court this afternoon, there
being on trial the case of A. Davidson,
of Nebraska, against Lebold, Fisher &
Co., an attempt to prove that the
transfer of real estate by the bank
Immediately after the suspension to
G. c. Sterl was not bona fde-that
Mr.. Sterl did not have an adequate
claim against the institution. 1t is
the first and We believe the only
suit entered against the firm
by creditors on that ground.
The case is still on trial. ]. II. Ma
han is for the plaintiff and Stambaugh
and Mead for defendant.
In the Z. B. church case argument
was deferred.
Harbaugh VS. Townsend - taken
under advisement.
SATURDAY.
The case of Davidson VS.. LebOld,
Fisher & Co. was not completed last
evening and was continued until next
week.
The case of Packer VS.. Packer was
dismissed.
Court adjourned last evening until
next Tuesday morning.
TUESDAY.
The case of Davidson VS.. Lebold,
Fisher & Co. was on trial all day in
the district court, being continued from
last week. The decision was reached
late this afternoon. The result was
that the attachmentm made by Davidson
was dissolved and judgment given
for Sterl. A full exposition of this
celebrated case will be given tomorrow.
WEDNESDAY.
Judge Nicholson, of the district
court, last evening decided the case of
Davidson VS.. Lebold, Fisher & Co., of
the defunct Abilene Bank. The bank
turned over its building after the fail
ure to G. c. Sterl in settlement of part
of his claim. Davidson, as one Of the
creditors, brought attachment suit to
prove COLLISION between Sterl and the
bank, and that Sterl had no deposit of
the amount at issue, $4,000. The
court decided that Sterl not only had
an adequate deposit, but even more,
and completely eXonerated both Sterl
and the bank. The prosecution sub.
poenaed thirty witnesses, but had so
little evidence that but six were called
TO testify. The case was watched with
great interest, as over one hundred
thousand dollars worth of real estate
and other property had been similarly
transferred by the bank and other at
tachments would have been brought
had this one been sustained. 1t was,
however, dissolved and judgment given
for defendants. The friends of Messrs.
Lebold & Fisher and Mr.. Sterl consider
the result a complete endorsement of
the banks fair dealings. Mr.. Sterl
had one of the strongest cases ever put
before the bar and showed conclusively
that the Buildings value, S11, 900, did
not nearly cover the amount of his de-
post. The suit was instigated by an
unwarranted suspicion and will effect
ually settle all litigation, while it en-
phatically vindicates Mr.. Sterl and the
bank of any unfairness.
COMPANY X. WARRIORS.
The case of Gleissner and others, VS..
John K. Uric and others, was sub
mitted to and decided by the district
court. This is the case involving the
funds of the late Co. D., 4th Reg't. K.
n. G.. The plaintiffs introduced their
evidence and then the defendants de-
INJURED thereto, for the reason that
the evidence did not prove that defend
ants were liable to plaintiffs. The
court sustained the demurrer and
rendered judgment in favor of defend
ants for costs of suit.
Brown vs.. Truman settled, defend
ants paying costs.
Gov. Teats VS.. John Engle judgment
for plaintiff in s25 and costs.