The Princeton union., 1901-09-26
.Cl0U'R ] |. R | |. IN SESSION.
q q lively Grind and Quick DISPOSE
ton of Cases on the Calendar
the Present Term. II
Joseph Pelarske Indicted by Grand
Jury=-Cases Against Ray and
McGinnis To-Morrow.

.A'ASNAAAiS /AO-VAOlLOWs
Ihe< fall term Of court opened at
Princeton, Tuesday morning, at 9
O'Clock. Judge Baxter was unable to
be here on Monday, and Clerk of Court
Briggs called court to order Monday
morning, announced that court would
not convene until Tuesday, called the
role OF jurors and excused them until
Tuesday. The jurymen and several at
:torneFs arrived Sunday and on Monday
mornings train, but the bulk of the
bar came in Monday night. a.
Judge Baxter entered the court room
Tuesday morning, and for few min
utes was busy shaking hands with at
torneys and many court attendants.
A..llttle past nine Sheriff Claggett's
Hear ye! hear yen rang out through
the court room and the machinery of
justice was put in motion. The first
work OF the court was to call the grand
jurystogether and charge and instruct
the members as to their duties, which
the Judge did in very plain and
practical manner. He was particular
about inquiring whether all members
had taken out their second papers,
and several members were closely
questioned in this respect. All proved
full-hedged citizens. Thos. P. Kerr,
of Milaca was chosen foreman and after
receiving instructions and being sworn
thejury retired in charge of Deputy
Sheriff VIM. Wallace, of South Har-
bor.S G. 7. Johnson was chosen clerk.
With the grand jury out of the way
Judge Baxter took up the calendar,
containing 80 civil and six criminal
cases. The first five cases on the civil
calendar were the echoes of the old
Anderson railroad land tax law, in the
State VS.. the old St. Paul & Du-
luth and St. Paul, M. & M. rail
road. companies to enforce the pay
ment of taxes. The law being dead
the cases no longer had a legal status
and we're dismissed. .5-,>,=*.. -.
/ & Ga CSaefs con tinned were as follows:
Mile Laos Lumber Co. VS.. Charles
Keith, ct al: John B. .Gilfllan VS..
Samuel M. Cook, Eugene L. Trask,
ct al: Austin & Western Co., limited,
VS.. Town Of South Harbor: Fred D.
McMillen VS.. James Powers, ct al: and
John Adcock VS.. J. A. Rush, ct al.
The case of Idella M. Cushman VS..
Chicago Title and Trust Co.. ct al,
was stricken from the calendar.
The cases of Eunice Farnham VS..
Foley Bros. & Guthrie, L. J. Chad
bourne as administrator, vs. Foley
Bros. & Guthrie were settled as per
stipulation on file. A second case of
L. J. Chadbourne, as administrator VS..
Foley Bros. & Guthrie was continued
by consent.
The three cases against Mary E.
Chadbourne, in which Clapp & Macart-
ney are attorneys for plaintiffs and A.
Y. Merrill attorney for defendant will
be heard by Judge Baxter at chambers
within ten days. The same disposition
was made of the case of Mary E.
Chadbourne VS.. Geo. W. Stewart.
The case of A. M. Kipp vs.. Edward
L. Reid will be tried at chambers on
eight days notice.
The case of Frank Baker VS.. Foley
Bean Lumber Co. was dismissed, the
plaintiff failing to put in an appear
ance. The case was reached sooner
than Messrs. Dickey and Stiles, his at
torneys expected, and Mr.. Stiles moved
for consent to continue ''The court
house is here and the court and jury
and attorneys" remarked the Judge,
''and If people do not attend it is their
own fault" The case was dismissed.
In the matter of Geo. A. Locke vs.,
Foley Bean Lumber Co. and Mary F.
Parrott VS.. Geo. Locke and John Bart
lett, there was some legal sparring by
attorneys interested in the case The
latter case has been in court some time
and was after for adjudication by
the. court upon argument. In the
former case, where Locke sues for flow
age damage to property Mr.. Clapp, as
counsel for defendants, made motion
| for a stay until the Parrott case could
| be settled and Messrs. Stiles, for
Locke in both cases, and Clapp and
Keith, who were attorneys for the
Lumber Co., and Mrs. Parrott, respect
lively, took up the attention of the
court for some time with motions and
arguments relative to the questions
involved. The court took the matter
under advisement. Later, it was ar
ranged to have the Locke VS.. Foley
Bean Lumber Co. continued by consent
and the Parrott case will be heard at
chambers on fifteen days notice.
In the case of the Plano Manufactur-