Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1900-06-28
STEPHENS VS. SMITH
A Story of A Strdu Colt Has Manu-
Hearers in Justice Whe6l6r'S
Court.

A case that bids fair to rival the
celebrated Iowa calf case was given
publicity for the first time in Justice
Wheeler's court last week. 1t oc-
cupied the attention OF his honor,
the attorneys. witnesses and a swarm
OF idle curiosity seekers for the great
er part of two days and is certainly
an unusually peculiar piece of litiga-
ton. The number of witnesses, etc.,
was of such volume that Justice
Wheeler's office was of insufficient
capacity and the circuit court room
was thrown open to accommodate the
crowd.
Ritner Stephens of the town of
Waterloo, he of populistic fame, was
plaintiff in the case and the action
was brought on writ of replevin.
According to the testimony he was
so unfortunate in the spring OF 1895
as to lose yearling colt. The animal
either couldn't stand the political
atmosphere that permeated the
Immediate vicinity of her abode or
didn't like her oats at any rate she
was stricken with fascination to see
the rest of the world and accordingly
shook the dust of the Stephens farm,
where she had been quartered for
fourteen months, and wandered to
parts unknown. And right well did
the animal cover her tracks for
no trace of her could be found. Well,
time went on and the loser had about
arrived at the conclusion that the
colt had 'sgone for good" when a
circumstance revived the memory of
the past and leads him to believe to
this day that his colt yet liveth.
James L. Smith is defendant in the
action. He resides on farm ust
west of Lancaster's city limits. Ac-
cording to- the story he tells, one
May morning. way back in 1894 there
came to his Enclosure a forlorn look
ing object, long haired, extremely
lean and stunted from the effects of
\, ID winter without rations. How
a horse. and it, too, was a yearling
past. Efforts to drive it away proved
unavailing and not being of sufficient
value to remunerate for the cost OF
advertising, etc., it was allowed to
remain and that was about all there
was to it. The animal grew and
thrived and in time made a fairly
good serviceable acquisition. 1t was
driven to town frequently and just
recently while here one day did Hal
Stephens, a son of the plaintiff, take
particular note of it. The more he
looked at the mare the more he was
convinced that it was the long lost
one his father once owned, and, learn
ing by inquiring that the animal in
question did actually stray onto the
Smith premises some years back, he
so informed his father, who claimed
the property and brought action Of
replevin upon Smiths refusal to re-
linquish possession.
All manner OF testimony was intro
duced from witnesses who claimed to
be experts on horseilesh and others
not Mr. Smith proved to the salts
faction Of the court that the estray
that came to his farm and which he
now retains. first made il, appearance
in the spring Of 1872, while Mr.,
Stephens swore thai The one he lost
disap peared in spring OF 1898.
From the grist OF testimony given
the court failed to see the plaintiffs
claim to the horse established and the
decision handed down at the close cf
arguments on behalf OF attorneys was
OF this nature.
Attorneys W. j. Brennan and H.W.
Brown acted as counsel for Smith.
while Lowry X Clementson appeared
for stephens.
1t Is rumored that an appeal will
be taken to the circuit court.