The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1903-04-09

. 3, / :.
employed by laden, came into court
Monday and filed an answer to the
complaint as filed when the writ was
granted, to which Attorney Van Walk
enburg who represented Mr.. Norton
made answer. Mr.. Foster made mo-
tion to quash the writ on the ground
that the quo warranto was not the
proper remedy, and in case this motion
was denied he made another motion
that plaintiff be granted judgment on
the pleadings and files in said action.
Mr.. Van Valkenburg made a motion to
have the court fix reasonable time
for trial in case the matter was taken
up and placed on the calendar, as I'M
less this was done and the matter
heard at the present term of court, no
relief could be obtained as was sought
in securing a writ of quo warranto.
The court said that the case was not
properly on the calendar and had no
right on the calendar, and the motion
was denied. Attorney Foster said that
if the case was set for trial that his
client would be entitled to thirty days
in which to file an answer the same as
in civil action. Judge Searle took
the motion to quash writ under advise
ment. AS the matter stands the whole
proceedings are Gin the air. at least
for the present.
The first case for a jury was the
Rush-AdcOck unlawful detainor case,
that was tried last fall before Justice
Chadbourne before a jury which gave a
verdict to defendant. The case was
placed on the district court calendar
last September and verdict was given
defendant, but on the arrival of c.. c..
Joslyn, plaintiffs attorney after the
matter had been disposed of, and who
produced affidavits to show why it was
impossible for him to be present, the
judge issued an order re-instating the
case on the calendar. G. A. West
phal, defendants attorney, made a mo-
ton to have this order vacated, and
Judge Searle at first refused to enter
tain the motion, stating that the mat
ter should be heard by Judge Baxter,
though he finally concluded to hear
the attorneys. and after they had ex-
changed some very fattering compli-
ments across the table, the judge de-
MED the motion. The case was then
ready for a jury but an effort was made
to have the parties try and reach set
Element without calling jury. They
got within 1925 of an agreement, and
this was the way the matter stood
when court convened after noon recess
Tuesday. Judge Searle offered the
olive branch of peace, and urged them
to split the difference which ATTORNEY
Joslyn was willing to do providing ADJ
cock would surrender his lease of the
Rush ranch May 1st of this year. In
the settlement there would be differ
ence of just S62.50 between them, but
Westphal and his client would not
yield, and the case went to jury. But
when the jury was called the parties to
the action got together and agreed on
a settlement.
The next case for a jury was that of
S. A. Carew and G. A. Eaton vs. Mich
ael Looney, appellant. It was an &C.
ton to secure payment of an old &C.
count Of S76. Judgment was secured
in the justice court for $50, and when
the case went to the district court Jury
verdict was rendered for $3S, the
jury being of the opinion that the
books showing the accounts were not
as accurate as they might be. Looney
claimed he never got due credit for
some of his butter he delivered.
In the case of M. G.. Barry VS.. J. H.
Kennedy, appellant, judgment of
SOL and court costs was given plaintiff.
The case of Henry Murphy VS.. The
Fleming Manufacturing Co., appellant,
was settled and dismissed.
In the suit brought by NJ. L. Cor
many against Aulger Rines to deter
mine the ownership of some land held
as claimed by adverse possession, the
case was dismissed after plaintiff had
closed his case. Mr.. Germany was not
prepared to establish proof of his claim
and the case was dismissed.
The litigation between Neils Ander-
son and A. J. Barrett, was settled and
the case was dismissed.
Judgment for plaintiff was rendered
in the case of D. McCuaig VS.. Olof Ed
ling and Anna Edling
The case of Chas. H. Chadbourne VS..
Lorin K. Lovejoy was tried and sub
mitted.
The State of Minnesota ex rel John
Goss VS.. E. E. Whitney, county auditor,
was placed on the calendar Tuesday.
1t was a mandamus proceedings to
compel the county auditor to refund