Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1904-10-27

DUE rTOnC restaurant TO furnish him
land his party food and other accom-
modations on the ground that the
plaintiff is colored man. Woodson &
Brown are the attorneys for the plain
tiff.
j. F. Bauer & Co., VS. Ed. Schuck.
row, attachment, suit for Judgment for
$171.71. alleged to be due from de.
fendant to plaintiff for goods pur.
chased and delivered. Gilmore & Moon
are the attorneys for the plaintiff.
Bauman & Klein VS.. N. Friedman,
suit for Judgment for $116.44 alleged
to be due for goods sold and delivered
to the defendant. Gilmore & Moon
are the attorneys for the plaintiff.
e. E. Collins ct al VS.. Frank Kohl,
ct al suit for judgment for $4,000 al
legged to be due plaintiffs from defend
ant as damages suffered through
breach Of contract on the part of the
defendants. Jameson & Smith at
torneys for the plaintiff. E. D. Daugh-
erty attorney for the defendants.
Eldon Independent Telephone Co.,
VS.. J. R. Eddy ct al; plaintiff sues for
damages for $500 alleged to be due
because defendant refuses to give pos
session of certain described telephone
material. 3. p. Collins and Sumner
Siberell attorneys for the plaintiff.
Thos. A. Charlton VS.. Ottumwa Tel
ephone Co., suit for personal damages
to the extent of $3.50 alleged to be
due by reason Of injuries received
from being caught and thrown from a
wagon by a wire belonging to the tele-
nhnnn n nr1,,Y, otS
for the plaintiff.
Excelsior Stove Co.. VS.. Chris Miller,
suit for $276.50 alleged to be due for
goods sold and delivered to the de-
PENDANT. George H. Heindel at
torney for the plaintiff.
T. A. Fulton VS.. c. E. Mckee, suit
for judgment for $265.4O alleged to
be due as rent upon the property
known as the Park hotel Smith &
Lewis attorneys for the plaintiff.
Annie E. Daggett VS.. L. B. Scott,
suit for Judgment for the sum of
$210.18, alleged to be due on a prom
issory note given for money loaned
defendant by plaintiff Lowenberg &
Coen are the attorneys for the plain
tiff.
Jerry Doyle VS.. Public Water Co.,
suit for damages to the extent of So
900 for personal injuries received by
plaintiff while in the employ of the
defendant company. Jaques & Jaques
are the attorneys for the plaintiff.
William Fritz VS.. S. G. Bates, suit
for judgment for 1852 alleged to be
due from defendant on promissory
note given to plaintiff. GeorgeF. Helm
del attorney for the plaintiff.
VIM. Fritz VS.. G. W. Cramblitt. ct
al; suit for judgment for $91.25 al
legged to be due on promissory note.
Mary 3. MCGOWAN vs.. VIM. Noah,
suit for foreclosure for rent appealed
from the decision of Justice o. L..
Campbell. B. w. Scott attorney for
the plaintiff.
G. H. Stuber, adm. VS.. L. O.. John
son ct al; suit for judgment for the
sum of S215.1S alleged to be due from
the defendant on pronissory note.
George F. Heindel attorney for the
plaintiff.
Theo. Koeppen VS.. Ellsworth Lloyd
suit for judgment for the sum Of
Sl29.So alleged to be due from the
plaintiff who is Chicago grocer, for
goods furnished to the defendant,
while resident of Chicago during the
years 1902 and 1908. Gilmore & Moon
are the attorneys for the plaintiff.
w. L. Henry VS.. VIM R. tanning,
suit for judgment for the sum of $6S8
alleged to be due for material sold
and delivered to the defendant. George
r. Heindel attorney for the plaintiff.
John HARRISON ct al VS.. M. D. Shir.
ley ct al; suit for damages to the ex-
tent of 5000 alleged to have been
caused to the plaintiff by reason of the
improper use Of building rented by
the defendant. Mitchell. Tomlinson
and Price, attorneys for the plaintiff.
NorWell Shapeleigh Hardware Co.,
VS. Chris Miller. suit for judgment for
the sum of $221.26 alleged to be due
for goods sold and delivered to the
defendant. George F. Heindel, attor-
ney for the plaintiff.
VIM. Henry Morehouse VS.. the Of
tumwa Traction & Light Co., suit for
judgment for 5000 for personal in
juries received while operating one of
the cars of the defendant company
which is alleged to have been defec-
tive. B. w. Scott and w. w. Cory. at
torneys for the plaintiff.
Ruth e. Thayer VS.. Fidelity Insur-
ance Co.. suit for judgment against the
defendant company for $500 alleged to
be due for the loss of building by
fire and covered by policy made out
by the defendant company. Jaques &
Jaques attorneys for the plaintiff.
Mary A. Smith vs. John Haggerty.
suit for damages against the defend
ant in which the plaintiff charges that
the defendant trespassed upon the
farm of the plaintiff and brandishing
a pistol 30 greatly alarmed the plain.
tiff that she suffered great bodily and
mental anguish. The petitioner asks
for $4,000. D. H. Emery is the at.
torney for the plaintiff.
Robert Knudson VS.. H. A. Gangs
suit for damages for $500 alleged toll
be due on fire loss as a result Of the
alleged negligence Of the defendant in
having fire insurance policy properly
made out George F. Heindel attor.
ney for the plaintiff.
Robert Knudson vs. German Fire In.
~