The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1896-05-07
HEAVY GRIND FOR JUSTICE
Nearly 20 Cases on the Civil
Docket and Several on
the Criminal.
A Divorce Case Dismissed but
Numerous Sensational
Cases Remain.


for Redwood county opened at nine
o'clock Tuesday morning with 68 civil
cases and six criminal cases on the
calendar. Judge Webber looked at
the long list, made unusually long by
the insolvency of the Citizens Bank,
and heaved sigh. And with the
prospect of three or four more Grim
inal cases on the calendar before the
grand jury adjourns he easily foresaw
two solid weeks of work with num-
ber of the causes continued until next
term or being settled during the in
terval of the trial of other causes.
The attorneys present up to yester-
day afternoon we're unusually numer
Gus. They included aside from Messrs.
Baldwin, Harriott & Patterson, J. H.
Bowers, Madigan & Dolliff, w. J. Nc
Leod and Chadderdon & Stuart of the
local bar, G.. w. Somerville of Sleepy
Eye, County Attorney Clague of Lam
berton, F. S. Brown of Tracy, V. B.
Seward of Marshall, George T. Olsen
of Springfield, L. G.. Davis of Sleepy
Eye, John Lind of New Ulm, J. R.
Kane and S. L. Pierce of St. Paul,
Carman N. Smith of Minneapolis, B.
H. Schreiber of St. Paul, A. j. Vol
stead of Granite Falls and R. T. DAILY
of Renville.
The first business that came ol as
soon as Sheriff Mead relieved himself
of the stereotyped announcement for
the opening was the setting of cases.
Heretofore this has always been done
after the charge to the grand jury.
But Judge Webber concluded that
the calendar was SO long that he
would call court an hour earlier and
get rid of as much work as possible
before the hour set for the convening
of the grand jury-ten o'clock.
All the tax cases against the Winona
& St. Peter were continued.7 7Several
cases were announced as settled while
others were set for trial by jury or by
court. One of the settled cases was
the one of F. B. Fargo & Go. against
the stockholders of the Willow Lake
and Sundown Creamery association.
There wasn't anything real interesting
in the proceedings until the cases of
Frank Sheffel vs.. John B. Alexander
ct al and Mary Scanlan VS.. the same
parties were called. AS is well-known
they involve the validity..of certain
mortgages. S. L. Pierce had been
called in as counsel to assist John
Lind in the latter case while in the
former Mr.. Madigan asked for the
privilege of amending reply and de-
fining the issues to be submitted to
jury. When the latter case was called
Mr.. Madigan announced that it would
be jury trial. Mr.. Pierce jumped to
his feet and in language exceedingly
on the line of bluff, roared:
"Mr. Madigan, did you not agree
with me that this was to be a court
case?"
Mr.. Madigan said that he did not,
upon which Pierce limited that he en-
phatically did so stipulate. Then Mr..
Pierce quieted down and agreed to let
matters take their course. He decided
to argue motion to have it tried by
the Court. It appears that Messrs.
Lind and Pierce are attorneys for A.
j. Grimmer, who holds the present
mortgage, or for Mrs. Henningsen,
who assigned it to the latter. Grim
mer tried to settle the matter out of
court by making any wrong done
Scanlan good but the Scanlans would
not consent to such a settlement.
The attorneys in the divorce case of
Ella McPhee VS.. John McPhee have
decided to present the issues of fact
to jury for settlement. The case
was started on the grounds of cruel