Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1899-03-25
THE WEEK IN COURT.
The Short Calendar Is Readily DIS
posed of.


gree on j. w. Pushor; the other
AGAINST Ernest Miller and Chas. Mil
Ter, for grand larceny in the second
degree, under the charge of having
stolen wheat from Chas. j. Heuer.
Both cases were, however, continued
by consent.
Following is the disposition OF the
cases which were not tired az TINS
term of court:
The Citizens Bsnk vs.. Thos. ORell
". ct al; E. T. Young, VIM c. Bick-
nell: continued-jury.
N;ck,os Benolkin vs.. Wilhelm A.
Oldhsyer, ct al; F. j. Steidl, VIM. e.
Bicknell; settled.
State of Minnesota VS.. Chas. e.
Camp; VIM. G. Biekneh' deo' T.
Darling; court case,
wv Harris vs.. J. L. Gould; 6.
Van SAINT, L. c. Spooner; court case'
Chas. Frost VS.. E. a. Vandberg;
Mum & Thygeson, VIM. c. Bickneil;
jury, continued by consent
Cbas Frost vs.. E. ). Hodgson, ct
al; Mum & Thygeson, E. j. Hodg-
son; stricken from the calendar.
State Of Minnesota VS.. A'C. Satter;
W.T., q R;cknell, r. A. Stone; court
case.
w Dablow VS.. A. NJ. Standish; II.
T. Beyans, Peterson & Foster settled
8 Stewart VS.. The Board of County
Commissioners; Geo. E. Darling, w.
c. Bicknell; dismissed. :
Asa e, Mcdonald VS.. The Board
of County Commissioners; u van
SAINT VIM. C, Bicknell;-jury, CON
tinted by consent.
MI. Countryman Vs, Il. L. Van
derburg; NJ. L. Countryman, VIM O.
Bicknen;-jury, continued.
The Minneapolis Threshing Ma
chine Co. vs. Robt Delahunt;
snooner & Shelley, R. T. Bevans;-z.
jury, dismissed.
John Ormond, Sr. vs.. Frank A.
Zahl: H.. T. Bevans, L. c. Spooner;
court.
Minert Larson VS.. Gaar. Scott &
Co.: S. A. Flaherty, Spooner Il Shell
levi jury, continued by consent.
1. C. spooner VS.. Margaret DeKay;
c.. l.. Shelley, VIM. c. Bicbnell;
court case.
]. E. Danielson VS.. Minnie l..
Schmidt, ct al. Henry Bush, Inter
yenor; F. E. Smith, L. G. Spooner,
VIM. C. Bicknell; continued by con-
sent.
Silver Walen vs.. A. L. Wolff; Spoon
or & Shelley, Geo. E. Darling; court
case.
Tuesday.
The first case to come to trial was
that of r. G. jefferson vs., the Board
of County Commissioners, This
was consolidated with similar case
in which M. G. Keating was plaintiff.
Geo. E. Darling appeared for the
plaintiff and VIM. G. Bicknell for the
county. The case was an action for
damages arising out of the laying out
of a road last July to run southwest
from Hancock. The hustling mer-
chants of that village desired con-
yenient route from the country south
west of their town and SO got this
road laid out. The plaintiffs were
not satisfied with the damages
awarded on account of the road cut
ting the lands diagonally. The jury,
however, taking all things into con-
sideration decided that Mr.. Jefer-
sons land was damaged to the extent
of S120 and that of Mr.. keating's
$50. This was, however, only frac-
tion of what the plaintiffs were suing
for.
Wednesday.
The case of Judson & Spur VS..
Jane Johnson, with Mr.. Darling and
Mr.. Bicknell, as their respective at
torneys, was next called. The suit
was for commission claimed to be
due to the plaintiffs under an agree
ment TO sell the farm of the defen-
dant, although the defendant had
herself sold the farm to a customer
brought here by the plaintiffs. The
Jury found that there was not suffi-
cient evidence of contract between
the two parties to the suit, and that
Mr.. Maioris, the purchaser, had never
closed the deal with the plaintiffs.
The verdict was for the defendants.