Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1894-05-31
Madison, May 20.

ment ~, .,., q. ,,is
rf,bt 10 retain the office of city attof-
nov If Milwaukee, has been settled.
M. case comes up on the appeal OF
1-r.z from an order OF the circuit court
# Milwaukee county declaring that
N. Krez unlawfully holds possession
- rbe Office of city attorney for the
cifv Of Milwaukee, and has done SO
moo his successor was duly elected
~ April II. 1894. 1t appears from the
cord that March ,, 1889, the legis-
,,t,ra passed law proVld-
inc that the city attorney OF
Milwaukee should hold his term for
foIr wears. and that the then present
incumbent should continue 10 hold
Two wears. which would have made his
form end in 1892; That the incumbent
tben resigned, and in 1890 an election
was had, and in 1892 another election
was held for the office of city attor-
nov and in 1882 the said Krez was
dpIv elected That in 1894 another
election was held and the said Hamil-
ton was declared elected. krez now
slaims that his term of office does not
avnire until 1896 ana that the election
of Hamilton was illegal
The order of the circuit court is sus-
mined and Mr.. Krrz has been rele-
gatad to the blessed retreats Of pri-
vate life.
The Ford case has had another de-
cjsion passed upon it.
There are three separate Appeals
one by Mrs Ford. one by Marcus u
Vord the son, and one by Joseph Z.
Ford a brother of the deceased, ana
executor of his estate. All the appeals
are from the Judgment of the Dane
rouuty court on the accounting.
This case has been in litigation al
most continually since the death Oh =
f. Ford, in January 1856, leaving val
liable property in five different states
his will was duly admitted to probate
in the Dane county court. Ihe WIN
is complicated in its provisions, dll1-
milf of construction and difficult OF eN-
,eution. 1t was before the supreme
court for. construction, and another ap-
neal was taken in the course Oh lne
settlement of the estate. Inc Wluo"
renounced the provisions made ior her
rnder the will. In August lS92, the
widow filed petition asking to have the
pvecutor removed for the reason that
six wears had elapsed since the grant
mo- Of letters testamenary and that
be had failed to properly administer
said estate. Upon trial IN the county
r,,rf this petition was dismissed ana
from this judgment the widow ana
Marcus c. Ford appealed. In lS9Z lhe
executor filed his final account ana the
widow and only son Marcus &. hled
fifteen different objections thereto
This was tried before the county court
and the widow and son Appealed from
fine whole of the decision and the exec
utor from the disallowance of certain
items i'm his account. The cases were
tried together in the circuit court ana
from the judgment thereof separate
appeals were taken by the executor
ana by the widow and by Marcus Z.
The supreme court sustains the Juds-
myut of the circuit court on all tlree
appeals.
R. G.. Slaughter vs.. Henry Demands
is au action by the plaintiff TO recover
Of the defendant 24O acres Of land III
Dane county. The plaintiff sets up the
various cuugeyolec, through which he
claims title. Tho defendant alleges
adverse possession of twenty years
and possession of ten years under
deed, also certain defects in platinum
ade On the Trial plaintiff introduced
power of attorney necessary IN Inc
proof of his utle WhicC the court re-
fused to receive and this appeal Is
from such ruling excluding sucn eVl
danne
The supreme court reverses this rul-
Ing
The official report Of tie proceedings
Is as follows:
Nossrs Daniel Waite, Parke Fl. Da-
Wis and George r. Simpson admitted
as attorneys
Gage VS.. Allen. Motion to yacate
order Of dismissal denied with $40
costs.
STATE OK rel. Sweet vs.. Cunningham
Motion for new trial denied with
90. costs Opinion by Justice New
lal
hufcr vs. Walsh Judgment re-
|--sei and remanded for new trial.
Slaughter VS.. Bernards. Judgment
reversed and remanded for new
-t Justice Pinney took no part.
Safe VS., Grunke, Questions an
,a.raI ia affirmative, and remanded
NJ further proceedings according TO
aw
STATE vs. SHEPPARD Judgment re
.ssed and remanded for a new trial
3aWellaT VS. Lehman Judgment re-
Esel and remanded for a new trial.
forter VS. Beattie. Judgment re
'eEred and remanded for further pro
Il and final judgment in favor
lle plaintiff and against the defend
o-'s ~ accordance with opinion