The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1899-04-06

court that the order laying out said
road was impro perly drawn and there
fol fore void. A Judgment was thereupon
entered in favor Of the appellants and
ii the town officials consider the road a
necessary one they will be obliged to.
goa Foyer the matter once more.
Those who expected to enjoy a spicy
case when the suit for SANDER brought
By N rs. Germany against J. "a. Ross
came am On for trial were disappointed.
Before the case was called the parties
at.ilterest agreed to dismissal and
When the motion came up the Judge
gave Them some good advice. The
attorneys shook hands at the conclu-s
sion and nd. their many friends hope there
will wilt never be a repetition Of the breach
Of friendship. !. ..... -. 7. s.s... u
8s3 The case Of Arson Howard VS.. The
North British & Mercantile Insurance.
COMPANY com will no longer appear on the
calendar Of this court, although it was.
not tried this term. After it had
dragged its weary way through sew,
eral terms Of the court the parties got
together and settled their. differences
Tuesday Just what the amount paid
BY the company was the U MON has not
been able to ascertain, but from. what
it has been able to learn the plaintiff
received full payment OF the policy for
the loss, the. only reduction being a.
matter OF his own costs in the action.
O-git-ob, the Indian who was ar,
rested charged with murder, was
brought into court Tuesday and on mo-:
tlonto the county attorney the court
ordered him released from custody.
1t appears that there is considerable
doubt as to- his guilt, several Indians
stating positively that he is not the
one chosen by the tribe to execute:
A-Wa-n,i--ga-boo. They further stated.
that:ifs the white men insisted they
would bring the guilty man to the bar.
There was clearly lack of evidence
and tits very probable that if the case
against O-git-ob had been tried it
would have been impossible to convict
him.. -. >>5 G ss..s- IL. ~s.
+ There was one divorce case on the
calendar, that of Annie Peihl VS.. Hans
p. Peihl, and there was no appearance
on the part of the defendant so the
lady was given her liberty. A sequel
to thisssuit will be wedding which is
billed to take place before a week
passes. >* p ! .t<.s ..s5@,- q. ! !%s
Peters 1riek on aud Amelia,
Ffic petitioned the court to be-
allowed to adopt a minor child, Mary
Clark, and after hearing the evidence
the court granted the petition with
leave to change the name of the child
adopted.
The famous case of MILESTONE versus
Crook, which the UNION noted few
weeks ago to the great discomfort OF a
certain: Milaca justice, came up on an
appeal from the decision of the afore-
said legal luminary and the Judgment
was reversed. - =... go =-.~
DR.. Cooks appeal from the Judgment
rendered in his case against Erickson.
in which the defendant set up coun-
ter claim for malpractice, failed for
want Of jurisdiction, the amount in
vOlved being too small for considera-
ton by the district court. ..
The petition of r. C. Dunn and 9TH
ers for the vacation of an alley in
Caters addition was granted on pres
Eentation of the petition to the court.
In the case of Andrew Lindquist
against Louis Anderson, ct al, de-
murrer to the complaint was sustained
and the plaintiff was allowed twenty
days in which to amend, with another
twenty days for the defense to prepare
and serve an answer. H.
Real estate tangles served to occupy
the attention of the court yesterday,
there being several titles involved in
the meshes of the law. Aulger Rines
was successful in his suit against Jane
Norton and secured a judgment. The
cases of Charles Keith VS.. H. Olof
F'riedburg< and Carrie Friedburg, his
wife, Cornelius D. Mccarthy VS.. H..
O. Darholt and others, and ORIG G.
Whited vs.. Smith L.. Conklin ct al,
were argued and submitted. The
court will make its decision known at
later date. as..@:. .....--.
But one jury was drawn during the
entire term and the case which it was
considering was settled by the par
ties before it became necessary
for it to decide upon the evidence.
This is indeed something new in the
history of the court in Mile Laos
county and an innovation which the
taxpayers gladly hail. The jurors
were discharged yesterday morning
when it became apparent that the
court had no further business for them.