Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1894-05-04
CASES FOR ARGUMENT
Four Cases Filed for Argument in
Supreme Court at the May
Term Here. =
Three Come From Fargo, One Bring
ing Up Memories of the Old
Argus.
Some Changes to Be Made in Meth
odist Circles Here-Various
News Items.
In Supreme Court.

In Supreme Court.
Four cases were filed in the supreme
court this morning, for argument at
the coming term, which %convenes in
this city next Tuesday. There of the
number were from Cass county. j. P.
Birchall vs.. Alexander Griggs, is az ap-
peal from an order of Judge Mcdonnell,
refusing to dissolve an attachment
against the real estate of Capt. Griggs.
In days gone by, Griggs was n of the
stockholders of the Argus Printing
com pany, and Birchall was working for
them. He sued for wages due, and re-
covered Judgment for about $500. Like
a great majority Of printing companies,
there did not seem to be any tangible
assets to satisfy Birchall's claim, and he
caused execution to he issued against
Griggs as a stakeholder. Griggs comes
in and claims that as against himself the
Judgment is a nullity, and the court
never acquired jurisdiction over his
corpus. Bangs & Fisk for defendant
and appellant; Fred Morrill,, contra.
Hazelton Boiler company VS.. Fargo
Gas and Electric company, was an ac-
ton to recover the purchase price of a
boiler, furnished by the plaintiff. judy
ment was rendered in the court below
for the boiler folks, for $1,000, and from
this the Gas company appeal. che main
issue is whether the boiler furnished
came up to the following warranty:
"We hereby guarantee that the boiler,
in regular practice, properly managed,
shall evaporate ten pounds of water at
2l2 degrees Fahrenheit, which we guar
antee to be a saving of at least 20 per
cent. in fuel over any horizontal tubular
boiler" Numerous tests we're entered
into, and each side claimed the same,
and backed up their assertions; the one
that the Hazleton boiler was as repre-
sented, and the gas company to the con-
trary. In the various tests, a "%calori-
meter was used, which clearly shows
that it can be relied on to prove each
side of a question.
The Fargo Gas Light & Coke company
VS.. Fargo Gas & Electric company, was
an action to recover Sis 5000 for indebted
ness incurred by the first named COM
pany, prior to it's being merged into the
latter corporation. The defense was
that by the terms of sale, from the first
to the second corporation, certain fix
lures, pipes, etc., were represented to be
worth $4,000; when, as a matter of fact,
they we're worth no greater sum than
$4,000; that a certain portable boiler was
represented to be worth at least $3.50,
and to be a part of the machinery sold,
when, as a matter of fact, on the transfer
of the property, said boiler was fraud
ulently removed, and was never delivered
to defendants damage in said sum, etc.
Judgment was given for the full sum
sued for.
Roberts, Throp & Go. vs.. Andrew H.
Laughlin, ct al, comes up from Ransom
county, and was an action on promissory
notes given for machinery purchased.
The old defense of want of consideration
was introduced, and in addition that the
defendants had been distinctly relieved
from liability by the company. Judg-
ment for the defendants. Plaintiff ap-
peals. Goodwin & Van Pelt, Salt Lake
City, for appellant; P. H. Rourke for re-
spondent.