Brookings weekly register. (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1898-1903, 1901-06-27
COURT
PROCEEDINGS.
The City Case Creates Considerable In.
terest and Was Not Completed.
Several important Gases We're
Continued.
CRIMINAL CASES.

Sh6Eo,
State Of South Dakota VS. Robert
Daw, Rape. Continued over term on
Courts own motion.
State Of South Dakota vs. e. A.
Wheeler, Illegal Fishing. Continued
over term on Courts own motion.
State Of Soutu Dakota vs. Fred
Golden and Betsey Golden, Violation
OF Quarantine Ordinance. Continued
over term on Courts own motion.
CIVIL CASES.
Chas. p. Kellog s. Co., a corporation
VS. Joseph G. Davis, trustee ct al, Fact
for jury. Tried to jury last week
Wednesday and Thursday. Verdict
for plaintiff.
Fred Feigenbaum VS. Philip O'Brien
Fact for jury. Dismissed by plain
tiff.
John T. Lovett VS. James McCarty
and Daniel McCarty, Fact for jury.
Tried to jury Friday night. Verdict
for plaintiff directed by Court.
Arthur Stevens vs. John Thompson,
fact for jury. Tried to jury on Sat-
urday. Verdict for defendant.
Baskerville & Gallagher vs. Sven
Swenson and Betssy Swenson. fact for
jury. Defendants attorney withdraws
his appearance. Case continued.
Augusta Brown vs. William G Brown
fact, court and jury. Settled and dis
missed.
T. Meyer and f. G. Dressed vs. John
Mich, fact for jury. Judgment for
plaintiff on default.
Charles D. Pratt vs Francis G.
Pratt, law and fact, court. Passed.
Hans D. Olson VS. Paulina A. Olson,
law and fact, court. Cheever & Chez
yer withdraw answer and cross COM
plant and all appearance. Judgment
for plaintiff.
In re petition OF T. r. Qualey, ct al
to exclude territory from City of
Brookings, fact, court. Tried Mon
day and Tuesday to Court and taken
under advisement. This case occu-
pied the court for the greater part of
two days and was of unusual interest
inasmuch as it is said to involve the
issue of $4,000 waterworks bonds to
be sold and delivered on July 1st.
The attorneys on both sides put up a
hot fight for their respective clients,
j. G. jenkins on the part of the pc
titioners and Philo Hall as city at.
torney. The petitioners are property
holders within the present corporate
limits and seek segregation. Their
petition was presented and rejected
by the beard of aldermen some time
ago and now the petitioners are seek
ing relief In the courts, contending as
we understand It,, that they are not
getting value received by the fact of
being and remaining part Of the
corporation. Without going into the
merits of the case, the REGISTER will
say that it hopes the case will be de.
cided soon, as we can hardly afford to
have the rapid progress of the city in
terfered with by being tied up In any
lawsuits.
Fred III. Ahlers VS. August F. Lieske
fact for jury. Judgment for plaintiff
as prayed for In complaint.
August Reinke VS. The German
Evangelical Lutheran Trinity Church
corporation, fact for jury. Con-
tinled.
Gustav Timm, by August Reinke
his guardian ad litum VS. Carl Hart
wick, fact for jury. Continued.
Isaac Twedt vs. Hans L. Stuve, alias
Hans Larson, fact for jury. Con-
tinued.
Geo. e. Van Guysling ct al VS. Con-
solidated Automatic Machine Com
pany, law and fact, court. Con-
tinued.
Matte limerick vs. May Farrell, ct
al, law and fact. court. Continued.
In Re Peder b. Jensen for change
OF name, fact, court. Petition