Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-11-20
Important Cases Will BE Tried to the
Court Next Week-Hatcher's Claims
Against His Tenant Thown Out by
the Jury-Porter & Porter Must Give
Back Price Of Horse.
,ecial to Times Republican.

jury cases. Court convened on NOV.
4. The first week was occupied With
probate business and defaults. On the
9th jury business was begun. The
first case tried was the contested will OF
Margaret f. James; Clark & Clark and
Judge Lewis for plaintiffs. and ]. w.
Carr for defendant. The case went to
the jury on Wednesday and after
very brief elaboration, the jury re-
turned verdict sustaining the will.
On Thursday morning the railroad
cases were called which resulted In
two decided victories for the plain
tiffs and Norris & Norris their attor-
neys. These were appeals from the
awards of a sheriff's jury, in claims
for DANA ges to plaintiffs farms by rea-
son of changes In the roadbed of the
Iowa Central railroad south of Grin
nell. Rutherford VS. Iowa Central Ry.
Co.. came first. The sheriff's jury award
was $500. The petit jury returned
verdict fixing the damages at $500. In
Devereuz VS.. Iowa Central Ry. Co., a
similar case, the first award being $476.
the jury fixed damages at 5000.
While the jury was out the case OF
johnson VS.. Hatcher was called, but
was not completed until Monday fore
noon, Johnson being represented by
Norris & Norris. johnson was Hatch
er's tenant. Desiring to leave the state
he had a public sale Of his property
Hatcher sued out writ OF attachment,
altho Johnson had fully provided for
the payment of his rent, and all other
claims. The sale was delayed until the
parties made settlement, and then
proceeded. Afterward, Hatcher sued
Johnson for $179 damages to farm.
That is. Johnson sued Hatcher on
wrongful attachment and dismissed,
and Hatcher set up a counter claim.
The court instructed that there was an
adjudication OF all matters growing out
of the lease. and the jury found the
balance OF the account, In fact, all Of 1t
'trumped up and promptly found
against Hatcher, and in favor of john
son.
On Monday OF this week the case Of
Ttbballs VS.. Cummings was begun. 7.
w. Carr for the plaintiff, and H. E..
Boyd for defendant. This was an echo
Of the Ewart Bros failure. In 1895
Cumrnins bought Of Ewart Bros. 500
worth of cattle. and gave his note due
in 10 months. He made two payments
on the note OF 5000 each. He then
hauled corn to Ewart Bros. and pas
tured cattle for them Of the value Of
about 1910. Cummings and Matt
Bwart settled, and Cummings took
Matt Ewart's receipt for the amount,
and his written statement to the Grim
nell Savings Bank. who held the note
as collateral, that he would pay 1t.
The note was subsequently lifted from
the Savings Bank, and the son-in-law
OF Robert Ewart, in 1908, endorsed Il
over to Tibballs, guaranteeing no de-
Tense.
The jury were instructed Tuesday
afternoon. and about 10 o'clock in the
evening they returned verdict for
defendant. Cummings, finding the note
hadbeen fully paid.
Promptly "wednesday morning the
case OF Garrett vs.. Porter & Porter
was taken up, Norris & Norris appear
Ing for plaintiff and ]. w. Carr for
defendant. This grew out Of the sale
OF horse. Defendant sold plaintiff
horse, warranting him sound, and with
the understanding II no; found sound,
he could return the horse and get his
money. The horse had the heaves, and
was worthless, and the price paid
was S115. II took thu Jury just ten
minutes to find for the plaintiff and
figure interest. They found that plain
tiff had rescinded the sale and was
emitted to his money with interest and
the cost Of keeping the horse since the
18th Of last April. To those who heard
the case tried 1t was fruitful lesson to
persons who think they have right to
lie and cheat when selling horse.
Thursday the case OF State of Iowa
VS.. Craig was on trial. The charge is
burglary. and II Is the only criminal
case for trial. Following that will
come Buffet VS.. Child. another horse
deal. ]. II. Patton for plaintiff and
j. P. Lyman for defendant. 1t Is an
a appeal from justice OF the peace. 1t
was tried to Jury there. and n verdict
for the plaintiff. and defendant ar-
pealed.
The next jury case is a replevin case
a contest over yearling steer. Book
neau vs.. Woodford. Lyman for the
plain iiff and r. NJ. Haines for the de-
PENDANT. Following that comes Hyatt
vs. Cooper. Carr & blanchard fer
plaintiff, and Norris & Norris for de-
PENDANT. This case is assigned for
Friday at 1880. 1t is much like the
case of Johnson VS.. Hatcher. Hyatt
was Cooper's tenant. Hyatt had sals.
and the parties made settlement, az
defendant supposed, of all matters, and
the clerk OF the sale was directed to
turn over to Cooper a certain sum of
money, which was done, and now Hy-
att sues Cooper for damages. claiming
something like 5000. This will proba
bly, be the last jury case tried as the
farmer Jurors are besieglng the court
for excuses, and the court
has said to the attorneys that he will
keep no Jury after this week. In all
probability number of cases will be
tried to the court, such as the Oska.-
loosa Building and Loan Association
vs. E,ailey, L. T. Shangle for plaintiff;
Marsh vs.. Mccoy, represented by Ly-
man: Flock VS.. Phillips, and McMeekin
vs. Phillips and Judd VS.. Phillips, de-
PENDANTS represented by Rayburn and