Barbour County index., 1904-05-18
testimony was different than Noble

testimony was different than Noble
& Tincher, the states attorneys,
thought it would be and different
from what they claimed he had told
them in the morning. This enrag-
ed the lawyers and they swore out
a warrant against Hinkle and
charged him with perjury and the
sheriff hustled the gentleman off to
Jail. In the evening Bur sent for
the county attorney and promised
to be good. He was permitted to
take the stand again and he then
told the story as he related it to
the attorneys, which was very dam
aging to Moon. Bur attributed all
of his prevaricating tendencies to
the brand of drinkables that they
keep in Medicine Lodge. He said
he was drunk, told where he got
his stuff, and named several of
his co-imbibers in open court. 1t
is said that he always had the
reputation of being truthful but in
this instance he seemed to be in
f1uenced to 60 wrong.
The next morning the county
attorney dismissed the criminal
prosecution against him. Hinkle
felt so good after his release that
he gave clog dance free exhibi-
tion on the brick pavement as soon
as he got out ofjail.
The jury which found Moon
guilty was composed of the follow
ing persons:
G. A. Blackmore J.F. Fisher
0.W. Davidson Frank Upham
D. N. Myers Geo. Mcclure
R. Robert be 49T17 puabar 4oe a: !; s,s,s Ogden
W. 8, Buckles Ed Harri.
In the case of E. S. Rule VS.. the
A. T. & S. F. r. R., demurrer to
the plaintiffs evidence was sustain
ed and the case thrown out of court.
Mr.. Rule sued for 500 damages on
account of the Santa Fe's grading
at Sharon in such a way as to pre-
vent a drainage around his store
building. Whenever there are hard
rains the water backs up and wash
es into his cellar. On the oc-
casion complained of part of the
wall was washed out and a lot of
merchandise destroyed. Another
suit may be filed or an appeal on
the demurrer may be taken.
T. L. Lindley VS.. Erastus Shore,
dismissed at cost of plaintiff.
Allison Butts ct. al. VS.. Simon
Steinberg ct. al, dismissed with
prejudice on motion of plaintiff.
Emil A. Tremert VS.. H. R. Hill
ton, judgment for plaintiff quieting
title.
John w. and T. D. Finley VS.. A.
M. Huff, dismissed at cost of plain
tiff.
F. R. Hayes VS.. D. w. Wing ct.
al, judgment for plaintiff quieting
title.
F. L. McCracken VS.. John H. Cor
der ct. al, judgment for plaintiff
quieting title.
w. L. Maddox VS.. The Showalter
Mtg. Co., judgment for plaintiff
quieting title.
Peter Hoover VS.. VIM. T. Bailey
ct. al, judgment for plaintiff quiet
ing title.
The case Of D. F. Allison VS.. VIM.
Baker of Kiowa was continued on
Monday after jury had been i'm
paneled. The plaintiff claimed a
Judgment on account of an alleged
breach of contract on the part Of the
defendant on lease on a farm two
miles west Of Kiowa. The petition
was defective and the court gave the
plaintiffs attorneys lief to amend.
Noble and Tincher are AlliSon'S at
torneyS. G. M. Martin is Bakers
attorney.
The case of G. R. Wiley VS.. Tom
Brown was begun yesterday morning
before the following jury:
Guy e; Sparks Frank Upham
J. F. Fisher o. W. Davidson
Robt Dunbar A J. Ogden
j. II. Matthews I'D Harris
w. 0. Buckles Robt Kenney
This suit grows out of whiSkey
fight at Kiowa which occurred a few
years ago. Mr.. Wiley in the capacity
of constable and several deSputieS Of
Moore township arrested the Kiowa
saloon men. Mr.. Brown was mayor
of Kiowa at the time and he caused
the arrest of Wiley and his deputies
on charge Of disturbing the peace.
but they were subsequently released.
Mr.. Wiley then instituted civil suit
for 100000 damages on account of
false arrest. G. M. Martin and Chas.
Rumsey are his attorneys. Noble s.