Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1899-03-02
COURT REOPENED
Prisoners Arraigned
and Plead Not Guilty.
Seyfarth Farrell.

Grant county circuit court recon
vened in Lancaster, Monday afternoon
at 1880. After the roll call of iurv-
men the case of Elizabeth Seyfarth
against Edward e. Farrell was taken
up. An attorney in the case an
nounced that three important witness
es had been summoned from Chicago
and could not arrive in Lancaster
until Monday night. There being no
other civil case ready the court gave
the jury a recess until Tuesday morn
ing at $50 o'clock.
The following prisoners were then
arraigned before the court and pleaded
''not guilty. Paul Nevins, charged
with larceny;Hattie Fitzgerald. charg
ed with adultery; Frank Newman
charged with adultery.
Tuesday morning the case of Sey-
farth against Farrell, was called.
After the jury was drawn and sworn,
Attorney d. w. Clark opened for
plaintiff Elizabeth Seyfarth with the
following brief statement of the case:
Two years ago Mr.. L. A. Seyfarth
opened a drug store in Lancaster.
After continuing in business for a
time he made some purchases OF
goods and contracted some heavy bills
which he was unable to pay. He sold
half interest in the drug store to
Edward G. Farrell for $500 and to-
gether they moved the drug stock to
Cassville and opened for business.
According to an agreement previously
made, after getting nicely started In
business in Cassville Farrell was to
buy for 5000 the halt of his silent
parner which he did little later Civ
ing to Seyfarth a note for 5000 A
short time after that Mr.. Farrell re-
pudiated the note, saying that he
never gave it and that he would never
pay it. Seyfarth was hard up. He
had secured position IN Chicago and
needed money to go with. He then
sold the note to his mother, Mrs.
Elizabeth Seyfarth, the plaintiff in
this case, tor 5000. Mrs. Seyfarth
held one note against her son for $500
and another note for $3.50, and she
gave him back these notes for the
Farrell note. and she paid $45 in
money to get his household goods out
of storage in Cassville and the re-
mainder of the 5000 she sent to her
son after he went to Chicago. She
was afraid to give the money to him
while he was in Cassville as he was
drinking hard. On the date that the
note fell due it was presented to Mr.
Farrell and he refused to pay it.
| 1
news for defendant Farrell Ed Nj.
lowry then presented his side of the
of the case and said in substance:
Mr. Seyfarth did come to Lancaster
and opened a drug store and he be-
came involved in debt and failed.
Mr.. Farrell bought half interest in
the drug stock. Some time previous
to that Mr. Farrell was thought to be
insane and was examined in the
county court. The court adiudged
that he was not insane and he went
ahead and purchased half interest
in the drug store and opened for bu
siness in Cassville. On going to
Cassville Farrell paid all expenses of
moving and added number of hun
dreds of dollars to the drug stock.
Seyfarth's creditors were hot after
him writing letters and coming
to Cassville-and he induced Farrell
to sign note for 5000 which he could
show creditors to prove that he had
sold the other half interest in the
drug store ana had received no money
for il, only the note, and promised to
give Farrell back the note after getting
his creditors quieted. Three or four
DAYS after drawing the note Farrell
asked him for it and Seyfarth STAYED
him off from time to time with one
excuse and another. At last Seyfarth
wanted Farrell to take the other half
of the drug store and let him keep the
note. Farrell was not a licensed
pharmacist and did not want the
other half of the store, but Seyfarth
would not give up the note. Defense
claimed that Elizabeth Seyfarth was
not an innocent purchaser of the note,
that she never paid anything for it
that could be considered valuable
consideration.
The note was introduced in evil
dence when it was discovered that il
contained a clause providing for at
torney's fees. A note containing
such a clause Is not negotiable and
the court decided that the case would
have to BE- fought on the grounds
that Mr. Seyfar.h still owned the
note.
The jury after being out several
hours returned verdict for the de-
1 PENDANT Farrell.
Tho state Of Wisconsin against
Fran0 Newman was begun Tuesday
and was given to the jury Wednesday
afternoon. The evidence was about
the same As in justice court. The
sensational part OF tie trial was the
reading by Deputy-Sherif McGonigal
Of a letter which Newman wrote while