Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1902-07-02
SCnENCK LOSES The CASE.

SCRENCK LOSES the CASE.
Breach Of Promise Suit Results in
Verdict for Defendant.
The breach of promise suit brought
by Henry l.. Won Schenck of Green
Lake against Amanda Hoglund OF
Dovre was brought to q close in dis
trict court last Saturday, shortly be-
fore noon, when the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendant. The
case occupied the attention of the court
for nearly a day and a half, being
called for Friday morning. The court
room was pretty we'll filled with an
anxious audience, eager to listen to
all the details OF the case as brought
out by the several witnesses. Being
an unusual case, IN that the plaintiff
was man, and the nature in which
it was brought, it naturally created
considerable interest.
The defendant is an old resident of
the town of Dovre, where she con-
ducts large farm, and is possessed
of property amounting to nearly
S8, 900. She is the widow of Peter Hog
lund,' and has family of eight chill
dren, besides two step children. Her
age is given as 80. She is hard
working woman and persons ally SUPER
vises all the farm work.
The defendant is we'll known
throughout the county, having resided
in the town of Green Lake with his
mother for a great many years. He
is said to be about half a dozen years
younger than the widow whose hand
he sought in marriage.
The suit was brought to recover
damages to the amount OF $4,645,
which the plaintiff claimed he had
sustained by reason of the defendant
not having married him. $1,000 was
demanded for injured feelings; $500
to recover loss of property which the
plaintiff alleged he was deprived of
by the refusal, and as a consequence
was deprived of all the comforts and
advantages of home. Forty-fve dol
lars was the claim for expenses in
Cured in preparing for the wedding,
being time lost from work, labor and
services for five days, and an ex-
penditure of $3.50. All these sums
the, plaintiff claimed he was Justly en-
titled to.
The defendant filed a cross claim,
asking judgment in the sum of $40,
which it was alleged was due her for
money loaned the plaintiff. This
amount the plaintiff claimed was due
for labor performed.
The attorneys for the plaintiff were
Otterness & Downs and Samuel Port
er appeared for the defense.
The date fixed upon for the wedding
was June %, 1900, but shortly; before
this matters came up which caused a
postponement of the event until after
the estate of Peter Hoglund, deceased,
had been probated. A settlement of
the estate was made July %, 1901. In
the cross examination it developed
that the plaintiff was to earn $1,000,
which was made a condition of mar
riage. The defendant was to earn
this sum as street car conductor il the
twin cities, and other means of ac-
cumulating the amount were also
given in court. The plaintiff of
course failed to produce the required
sum, and after long absence again
pressed his suit, but met with most
bitter disappointment. The defendant
claimed he had not fulfilled his prom
ises and therefore was not entitled to
consideration. Many amusing Incl
dents OF the engagement were brought
out, one of which was that the ring
had been bought with money received
from the defendant. 1t was also al
legged that the defendants life had
been threatened and that the plaintiff
had on different occasions betrayed
his trust while at work on the Hog
lund farm.
The case was the most interesting
one held during this term of court and
was not lacking in sensational feat
ures.