The Bottineau courant., 1904-01-15

Il. Colthorp because of his being car
rier Of the United States mail. Vi
The court. after listening to an ar
gument of demurrer in the case of the
Fulton Land Company vs.. Edouard
Cretian on a breach Of contract. adj
journed until Wednesday morning at
1880. -: ", ,...... nv: ..s...y..'., .>t,.,
Court convened Wednesday morning
as per adjournment. In the case of
Samuel Desoe, for whom bench war
rant had been issued on account of his
failure to appear as a grand juror, it
developed on his arrival that he had
not been served with a subj oena,, and
was therefore excused and allowed to
take his place on the jury! .t*1
Wednesday afternoon was taken up
by pleas of defendants in the differ eat
criminal cases and in the arraiyn-
ment of those who had not been
called on Tuesday. The following
cases were continued over the term.
State VS.. Henry Zugeler. found quit
ty at previous, term Of court and
awaiting sentence, which must be
passel by Judge Cowan. State vs..
Thomas O'Neil, on the same grounds
State vs.. WIN. Holtz on the same
grounds: State vs. John Doe, un-
known defendent, he having never
been arrested State vs. Albert Liable
and Hyacinthe Richard. same as in
the case of Zulger. State vs.. Fred
Dore on the same grounds. State VS..
William Halls. because of motion
for new trial. State vs. Major w.
Fawcett, found guilty and awaiting
sentence and not now within the juris-
diction of the court. State vs.. Alex
ander G. ..Kalbfleis:h because the
defendant is not within the juirsdic.
ton of the court State vs.. P. A.
Andrews and Wilt am Pierce. This
case is continued over term because
of the escape Of Pierce from the coun-
ty Jail. State vs.. Henry Wynne.
same as above. ..
The following cases were dismissed |;
State VS.. F. A. Turner, charged with
violation of the prohibition law, there
not being sufficient evidence to war
rant prosecution. State VS.. John
Levi, charged with embezzlement,
there being insufficient evidence to
warrant a prosecution. State VS..
Frank Rohra bacher, charged with
grand larceny, on account Of the inn
possibility of procuring important wit
nesses. and the lack Of sufficient evil
dence. outside of the testimony Of
THESE persons to warrant prosecution n.
State vs. VIM, Q. Jones. charged with
a threat to do bodily harm I'd case
where . bolid to teep peace. had been
given and the situation Of affairs,
made it no longer necessary to hold him
under bonds. State vs. George Truss
Ter, charged with malicious mischief,
dismissed on the same grounds as
above. State VS.. James Bennett.
charged with selling chatte1 subject to
lien. dismissed on motion of the
states attorney i. State vs.. Geor @ F.
Wilkinson charged with disposal OF
mortgaged property. dismi sad OH mo-
tion of the state 8 attorney. and Sta t, W..
James Halliday charged with selling
mortgaged property. also dismissed on
motion of the state s attorney. In
these three cases the court instruced
the states attorney to fl Q the reason for
motions of case dismissal
The case Of the State VS. c. C.. Mel
son, for failure to inform. was strnck
from the calenpar as there had been
nh information fled. In one Of the
cases of the State vs. Milton WheaJly a
motion was asked to dismiss on the
ground that the records Of the just ce
; sst