The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1902-04-10
COURT in SESSION.
Judge Searle and Jurors Busy Adj
justing Matters in Controversy
Between Man and r1an.
Grand Jury Has Turned in a Big Batch
Of Indictments, and Still There's
..-..- More to Follow. "

So. -@i F. - s - !. e
..... More to Follow.
The April term Of court opened last
Monday afternoon with Judge Searle
on the bench. The Judge drove over
from st. Cloud in the morning, arriv-
ing in time for dinner and convened
court at 2 P. M. ~. . S5s..#s
The roll OF grand jurors was called,
eighteen answering to their, names.
Three of these desired to be excused,
but the judge could grant the wishes
of but one, as this. left. only one more
than quorum for doing business. He
remarked to the other two who de-
sired to be relieved from duty that
they might be- excused on Tuesday
when some of the other members of
the jury put in an appearance. e. M.
Farnham was chosen foreman. Clerk
Briggs swore the jury and the Judge
delivered them very clear and COM
else charge, in which he explained
their duties in very plain manner.
They were placed in charge of Officer
Elmer Bigelow and retired to the Jury
room to take up such matters as prop
erly came before them. They went at
once to work on the cases of Bradshaw.
Gatz and Leuch. -. ,........>. &
The civil calendar was called and
the case of Austin g. Western Co.,
Limited VS.. the Town of South Harbor,
was continued. On account of SMALL
pox in the family of Chester Pearson
the case of Pearson VS.. Craig was also
continued. This reference to smallpox
caused the judge to remark that he
had heard that there were good many
cases of smallpox around Mile Laos
lake, and he said that a lawyer had
asked him in the morning if he did
not thin it was running little risk
to hold court in Princeton with SO
many cases of smallpox at the lake
and persons from that vicinity being
in attendance at court. The Judge
said he hoped all who had been ex-
posed to the disease would keep away
from court, and he halt jokingiy ree Is.
marked that he would entertain q
motion to adjourn court if any one
present desired to make such a mo-
ton, but he was informed that the
rumors of an epidemic of smallpox at
the lake we're gross misrepresenta-
tions and the matter was dropped.
The case of Robert II. Sleeves vs..
Nancy M. and Hiram Harrington was
continued, and the case Of the Plano
Manufacturing Co., and A. II. Sleeves
VS.. Frank Kaufert was stricken from
the calendar. This case was up for
trial last September, but plaintiffs at
torney made motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the summons were ir-
regular, but Judge Baxter overruled
the motion, and the point in contro-
versy was appealed to the supreme
court. In the matter of Frank Peter
son, appellant, VS.. the Supervisors of
the Town of Princeton, ATTORNEY
Dickey made motion to have the case
dismissed, but the Judge remarked
that he would have to hear from the
counsel for appellant. The case was
brought by Peterson in the form of an
appeal from an order of the town board
for the laying out of a road through
his property near Silver lake.
The case of Cook VS.. Zins and
Remer was continued, and also the
case OF Mary F. PARROT VS.. Geo. Locke,
ct al. as plaintiff died at Anoka last
week. This case was on the calendar
last September and in connection with
the case OF Locke VS.. the Foley Bean
Lumber Co. caused lot of legal SPAR
ring for points. The latter case was
continued to the present term while the
former case has remained undisposed of
to the present time, death alone prevent
ing any further proceedings in the
matter, unless the estate takes the
case up. Mary F. Parrot of Anoka.
brought an action against Geo. Locke
and John Bartlett, involving title to 80
acres of land at Bradbury Brook, mid
way between Milaca and Mile Laos
lake.: Some years ago defendants paid
plaintiff 81, 900 and later $500 on their
contract for deed for $4,000 for the
property. The last payment was made
in 1895. The defendants said they
were willing to pay the balance of the
purchase price, $500, provided the
plaintiff furnishes them with a clear
title, but refuse to pay more because
the title is defective. The plaintiff
claimed the right to foreclose the con-
tract for deed and take possession of
the property. Locke brought suit
against the Foley Bean Lumber