Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1896-01-23
District court.

DEAJ0 Vb' bhuu0WhIoLs OOhVVA
Dist A vs.. Stone, at cost OF defend
ant, NippS VS.. PHILIPPE county; Thorn
ss VS.. GllliOs; Windle vs Briantj
Matteson VS.. Phillips county.
Those continued we're: State vs..
Kness. same vs. Crooke; same vs..
Hantz, Barrett vs. SpurloCk; Phillips
County Bank vs., Bickiord, Smith VS..
Thompson; Young vs.. Landes; Spoil
stra vs.. Spoilstra; Hubbell vs.. Lind
say; Real Estate Trust Go. vs.. Alellenj
Duudee Mfg. Go. vs.. Hurdj Andrews
VS. Hill; Hlnman VS.. Taylor.
Divorces granted IN Wiley and
Wiley; Dundon and Dundonj Matson
and Matson.
Judgment was found for the plant
ifP in Philips County Bank v Phillips
County Az Soc, $3.50; Dougherty '
McCrosky; Mskepeace Robinsonj
Smith v Weeks, $l36; Keys Moul-
ton, $1,69O; Vermont ms Go v Shep-
ard $7Olj Gay Beedy, $685. Smith '
Smiley, $16O; Smith Mccormick,
SEAL; Ten Eyck Samms, $453; Lowe
v Bowens, 1904; Barney " Wagner,
1928; Same v Carroll, $l4Si Same v
Davis, $l3S %; Same v Powell, $l25;
lst National of Phlllipsburg Miller,
$3.50; Jenness Hetb, $517i Boyd v
Whitney, $50; Phillips County Bank
Rogers, $3.50; Alliance Trust v
Dixon, 81, O74; Dsvey Peters, l,545i
Central L Co v Gettys, $685. Butter
field White, 500; Bartlett Coffey,
$567; Godfrey v Wood, $1,l75j God
frey v Smith, $3.50, Spaulding Nash,
1884; Bogue Y Ingersoll Com Go, 1925
Carpenter Conoly, $685. Jones '
Herring, $40, FanSler VS. Gettys,
1926 Judgment for defendent was
found in Traders Bank Thompson
sales we're confirmed in Brown Web,
Emerson Griffs, Jeifnes Maxfeld
Neb Loan Il T Go v Lowe, Gregory '
Copelan, Manley v Frost, Waldo '
| 4
Mccoy, Andrews v Pitcher, Brownell
Y Cowger, Smith v Everts.
The case of the Phillips County
Bank vs.. the Phillips County Agrlcul'
tursl Society, attracted considerable
attention. The case grew out OF q
note given by the Society and secured
by several gentlemen, upon which
money was obtained to paw up old
debts. The note was signed by five
persons with the understanding thai
seven we're to sign, and was turned
over to the bank with the FIVE names
Payment was resisted upon the
ground that the agreement as to the
seven slgners was not carried out
The evidence was very contradictory
but Judge Geiger decided for the
plaintiff. It will now be necessary
for holders Of unpaid stock to pay up
and for the stockholders generally t
contribute about $500 per share tc
meet this Judgment. The directors
meet Saturday and probably il yor
own any stock in the defunct society
you will be notified Of the amount ex
pscted Of you. Judge Geiger upor
mortgages held that where sheriff
deeds had been issued he would mo-
open up the cases again. In othel
suits however, he would apply thu
eighteen months redemption in &C
Cordsnce with the supreme court de-
Cision
At the time Of sentencing Ed Sandp
N. B Mccormick made an earnes
plea to the court for a light sentence
for his client. He spoke at consider
able length, and when he had finish
ed Judge Geiger instructed Sands tt
stand up, which he did. When asked
il he had anything to say why sen
tence should not be pronounced upor
him, he said, Nothing but what my
attorney has said" The judge ther
said:
A jury of twelve men, Mr.. Sands
and a jury which, if / be any Judge
of human nature, are as good men al
usually sit upon a jury in passing
upon important matters, have founC
from the proof that came to them il
this court room, under the sanctity o.
an oath, that you are guilty.
Many people who form opinions az
to such matters as this, as to the gull
OF a defendant, form them, / some.
times think, without warrant, for al
ways these crimes are committed in
secret.
Men may 20 through life to all sp
pearsnces exemplary, upright, anC
you might say, model citizens; so fal
as human knowledge goes they may
go out Of life with that good name
| n 4