The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1903-04-09
A LOT OF LITIGATION
The April Term of Court a Short One
and all Business is Disposed
of in Two Days.
But Three Jury Cases Tried-= Gould
ing Case Only One of Any
Special Importance.

judge and many of the attorneys arriv-
ing on the afternoon train. Court was
Immediately opened after the arrival
of the train, with the following roster
of officials:
Judge presiding D. B. Searle.
Deputy clerk. .......... :. .:..... NJ. NJ. Briggs.
Deputies, mo- B. Newton and Z. F. Bigelow.
special deputy ............. 80. Robert Clark
court sS st AnsS p. M. WoodWa ord
Sheriff Claggett opened court and
Judge Searle Immediately took up the
calendar, there being no grand jury to
charge. 1t did not take long to go
through the calendar and in less than
an hour the long yarn of litigation was
wound about the judicial bobbin. Many
a case as it was called dissolved like
the morning mists, and long folios Of
testimony, dispositions, complaints and
answers became ancient history in a
very short time. After the calendar
had been given heat or two there
were just two civil cases for trial by
jury, while on the criminal calendar
but one case was for trial.
In the tax case of the State of Mime
sofa vs.. the St. p, NJ. & M. Ry. Co.,
stipulations were filed.
The following cases were continued
F. D. McMillen vs.. M. S. Rutherford:
Robert H. Sleeves VS.. Nancy NJ. and
Hiram Harrington; Mary F. Chad
bourne VS.. Kate Kenely, ct al: Martin
w. Hanks VS.. George Locke, his wife
Alice Locke, and John Bartlett; J. NJ.
Stowe VS.. Mary ]. Murphy, appellant:
Martin Lynch vs.. Foley Bean Lumber
Co.: Katherine Alice Briggs VS.. Ms.
Rutherford: Thos. F. Norton VS.. Fay
Cravens; Plano Manufacturing Co. ct
al. VS.. Frank Kaufert; Mary E. Chad
bourne VS.. John Draxton: Mary E.
Chadbourne VS.. Alexander Hartz; Aus
tin & Western Co., limited VS.. Town
OF South Harbor.
In the case of Lynch VS.. Foley Bean
Lumber Co., counsel for defendant
stated that the case was one for dam
ages from dam overflow at the lower
lake at Mile Laos, and that no claim
or demand had ever been made by
plaintiff until the service of summons.
Defendants had not had time to make
surveys and ascertain to what exent
the howage had affected the land, if
any, and on this showing, which coun-
sci for plaintiff considered reasonable,
the case was continued.
The case of Edward j. Berlin VS.. N.
M. Cook was settled out of court, as
was also that Of J. G. Dregnie VS.. the
the Citizens Mutuul Fire Association.
In the case of Annie c.. Warren VS..
James H. Ward, ct al, a motion was
made by Attorney Goebel for the de-
PENDANTS for an order to show cause
why judgment should not be salts
fed in favor of defendants, who in
1892 bought l2O acres of land of plaint-
if and paid 81, 900 down, agreeing to
pay S., 1000 in four annual installments.
Default was made in payments and
Judgment for 81, 400 secured against de-
PENDANTS, who Attorney Keith for
plaintiff claimed have been insolvent
until recently when it was discovered
that Ward and those interested with
him had timber interests in Oregon.
Some time after Judgment was entered
+ No. Il L
ton of contract. Plaintiff claims there
never was any equity in the property
which deteriOratedi in value. Mr.. GOebel
for his client claimed that according to
the terms of the contract all obligations
were to be cancelled should the prop
erty by reason of default in payment
revert to the original owner, and he
argued that the cancellation of the con-
tract wiped out the Judgment. The
court denied the motion.
The case of A. P. Jorgensen VS.. D.
H. Robbins, which involves some tech
meal points regarding the ownership
of saw mill located at Vineland, will
be tried before Judge Searle at cham
bers in St. Cloud in May. The case is
one where plaintiff denies the right of
defendant to move saw mill from the
land on which it is now located. Rob-
bins bought the mill at an execution
sale by Sheriff Claggett, the mill and
machinery, etc., being sold as personal
property to satisfy Judgment volun-
tarily confessed by the owner. The
mill is located partly on land belonging
to Robbins and partly on land which
plaintiff claims to own, but which de-
PENDANT claims is portion of the land
allotted to the Indians as a burial
ground under the terms of the Morris
act.
Tuesday forenoon Judge Searle was
kept busy listening to motions by at
torneys. The first matter of import
ance was the disposition of the writ of