Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-11-27
An Interesting Suit for Damages
was Tried Saturday Before
s@$s Judge Fort.
The Defendant and the Prosecuting
Attorney do Some Counter
Swearing.
The Case Dismissed and the
Costs Assessed Upon the
Plaintiff.
A Scene in Court,

A Scene in Court.
In Judge Forts court Saturday af-
ternoon John Boyle brought action
against Erard Woorster for damages to
the amount of $50. The case dates back
to the 23d day of October, when Wooster
shipped a band of sheep which numbered
1900 or about that many, as the testi-
mony showed. During last September
John Boyle hired Mr.. Morris to cut
some hay on a piece of land he owns
near where the sheep we're being herded.
The agreement was that he was to. be
paid one dollar a ton for cutting the hay.
Mr.. Boyle was the first witness put on
the stand and he testified that about
fifteen tons of hay hadSbeen destroyed,
\ and his valuation O! the same was $500
per ton. MI. Morris in his testimony
said he thought there was between ten
and fifteen tons of hay and it was worth
9 least So per ton. Other farmers testi-
fled that the sheep we're on the hay and
that damage had been done; in fact the
defense did not deny the fact but swore'
that the herder had been instructed to
water the sheep at another place, which
would have kept the sheep off the hay.
The herder, Mr.. Cameron, swore it was
impossible for one man to keep so many
sheep off the hay, besides it was neces-
sary to get water where he did. He
4 a Jcn soyynro tho how bod oil laar r,,irol
by the sheep, but as he had some pre-
Yious trouble with Mr.. Woorster, his
testimony would not be as valuabls as
THAT of disinterested farmers. The main
point the defense wished to make, how
ever, was that a demand for damages
had not been made upon the defendant
for the amount previous to the action.
Mr.. Stoyell, attorney for the plaintiff,
stook the stand and swore that on the
E23d day of October, about fifteen min
Entes prior to the commencement of the
action, he made u verbal demand on Mr..
&Woorster in front of his office on Fourth
Street. Up to this point of the case there
ssehad been nothing of especial interest,
{gs.and the case had assumed the appear
lance of a common civil suit for damages.
q But upon Mr.. Stoyell stating that he
made the demand in question, Mr..
SWoorster sprang to his feet directly in
front of Mr.. Stoyell, exclaiming: "You
are a ID perjurer A little excite
ment followed. The attorney for the de-
fendant succeeded in quieting Mr..
Woorster and the case continued. The
next witness called by the plaintiff was
Frank Cviney, a stonemason who is
n netimes called "Frenchy." He testified
III Won the day in question he was in
Stoyelrs office on some land bust
\ ,, land heard Mr.. Stoyell make the
I land upon Mr.. Woorster. He said
Eeu told him to remember the Incl
as he might need him in court as a
1 PISS at the trial. Mr.. Stoyell then
u I'D Jas. B. Glascock, who had a very
q Stinct memory of being in the office
n }hat day and seeing Mr.. Cviney
Il but he didn't remember seeing Mr..
% ster.
III jWoorster then took the stand md
" Rthat a demand was never made on
"a He came in town on the day in
. Eon and put his team in Nels Whites
II barn. The first person he saw
~ leaving the barn was Sheriff Don
= Ewho served the papers in the case
] u, and the case was started before
& and had been made. This was the
u Zee.
81 ge&Fort decided the case in favor
defendant, although according to
n2,281 of the compiled laws it is
u GA sIed demand in such actions is not
n sH#sessary. The decision was a dismissal
n Is case, with costs charged to the
Il #htitf. Mr.. Stoyell gave notice of ap-
4 egas The case was first brought before
II Judge Chase and taken to Judge Forts
y burt on g change of venue at Woorster's
u Agquest.
u An Interesting Case.