Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1902-12-03
District Court.

~ w. OCono, r. y. 1lllngWOrth.
The jury was out less than an hour
and returned verdict of gullty-the
charge being embeZZlement. Mr.. Ven.
mum had charge of ine mare belong
ing to A. NJ. Lumpkin and sold it to
County Attorney Conley of Sedgwick
county. Lumpkin claims Vennum sold
the animal without authority but Ven.
mum claimed he had power of at
torney.
A motion for new trial will be made
In this case. If 1T is Overruled Mr..
Vennum will appeal to the supreme
court. At present he is In the hands of
the sheriff.
State vs.. j. S. Jones, county treasur-
or, dismissed.
Elizabeth A. Finch vs. George T. Bar
ton, dismissed for want of prosecution.
l.. d. Elliott vs.. J. o. Davidson.
Judgment for plaintiff quieting title.
Porter Moss VS.. @. w. Burt. judy
ment for plaintiff for 81, 1,117.84.
j. r. johnson VS.. L. B. Hill. Dis
missed on motion of plaintiff.
Mary E. Fulton vs.. J. B. Fulton.
Decree of divorce granted as prayed.
j. N. Cant vs.. j. NJ Grouse. Con-
tinued.
II. H. Fair VS.. J. A. Booher. Dis
missed on motion of plaintiff.
J. l.. Lombard vs.. J. III. Charless.
Report of receivers approved and amount
In hands of clerk and sheriff ordered ap-
piled on judgment. Sheriff's sale con-
frmed.
Al. Hargis vs. Emma J. Miles.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Clara Bell Teagle VS.. Clayton G. Tea
gle. Decree of divorce granted.
Geo. Zimmerman vs.. G. G. Burge.
Judgment quieting title.
Joseph G. Robinson VS.. T. H. O'Neil.
Judgment for plaintiff quieting title.
The KiOwa damage cases, growing
out OF the liquor war, and the case of
state vs. Moses Wright wherein Mr..
Wright is charged with failing to turn
over to the county treasurer certain
fines collected from Kiowa jointists,
were continued until February.
Prof. A. B. Honnold, q. F. Jesse and
Walter Owen were admitted to the bar
and are now factors among the legal
fraternity of Barber county.
The Johnson n-Inglebright case was
called Friday morning and was not dis
posed OF until Sunday morning when
the jury returned verdict in favor of
Mr.. johnson. Mr.. Inglebright and MIR.
johnson had been engaged in partner
ship few years ago and it was closed
by Mr.. Johnson's giving Mr.. IngIebright
deed to a large tract of land in Aetna
township. The deed did not include
the Johnson homestead and Mr.. Ingle:
bright claimed that the agreement COW
cred that quarter along with the other
land and brought suit to have it in
cluded. The testimony, however, in
troduced by Mr.. Johnson disputed him
on that proposition and the jury decid.
ed that Mr.. lnglebright could not re-
cover what he claimed. Mr.. Inglebright
Is close to ninety years of age and he
has passed the time when he can hand
le such big business as he has been
conducting. About $4,000 was involved
In this suit. Judge Gillett has not yet
made his finding. He simply submit.
ted the question to the jury as to wheth-
or any fraud or scheme was resorted to
by Mr.. johnson in Tot including the
homestead In the deed, or whether Mr..
Inglebright had reason to believe the
homestead was included at the time
the deed was written. The jury found
Negatively.
Mr.. johnson was represented by No
ble q Tincher and Mr.. Inglebright by
Seward /. Field and T. A. Noftzger, of
Anthony.
The following jury sat in the case:
Alex Harris j N Mcclure
E Lester FL Illingsworth
A Mccoy w A Bradshaw
T F Evans o Briggs
VIM Davenport John Brown
Frank Gordon
After this case was disposed of court
took recess until Thursday Of this
week.