Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1904-09-02
IN DISTRICT COURT.
Proceedings Of the Recent Term Held
NJ Linton.


supposed that when cohrt opened on
Tuesday morning the case Of the state
VS.. Van dc vorste wouA begin were
disappointed. The inft,rmation was
filed by States AttorneNLynn on Mon
day evening. The prI$oner was not
required to plead till The next day,
under the law, and al kind statute
gave him another day after pleading
to get ready for trial.
There was considerable legal spar
ring on Tuesday. In the forenoon the
defendent was not readt TO say wheth.
cr he was guilty or noE oEWhen court
opened in. the afterlD0h Attorney
Stevens argued demurrer that he
had filed during the morning. He
contended that the thitd count in the
information stated facts which, If
proved, would warranta verdict Of
manslaughter only, whilethe first and
second counts charged Nillful murder.
So lie asked that the Information be
quashed. The court oyerruled the de-
murrer, and the prisoner pleaded not
guilty to the information. Then the
defendent asked for 24lhours in which
togct ready, and he Yas given that
time.
On Wednesday Afternoon the de-
fendant's attorneys cane into court
with long affidavit claiming that he
could not receive faf and Impartial
trial in this county fq the following
reasons: States Attorge ey Lynn has un-
due influence OH th&people of the
county; that he has td Ken more inter
est in the case than h Els required to
take as prosecuting attorney; that
Lynn is a witness in tie case, and has
talked to u large number Of people
concerning the case; that DR.. Hogue
is a witness, also, and has undue intiu.
ence upon the people, find is very much
interested in this cas{ and has preju-
diced the people dGainst the de.
fendant: that the Newspapers pub
lished in Linton havehone their work;
that the Record is ap influential pa.
per, and its publlcatioas rs 6arding
this case have prejudiced the people
against the defendai Tint by. Van
Beck and others haSG lYsry active
in prosecuting tI kehdant, and
they have dQps \ pfha toward
FpreJudlcing the people against MN;
John Roop, also, Of Hazelton. and
John Stiles, Of Winona. have talked
largely concerning the defendant, and
prejudiced the people against him
the defendant also feels that he can
not have fair and impartial trial be
fore the Hon. w. H. Winchester, and
he therefor asks for another Judge tt
try the case, and that the case be re
moved to another county in the 6tl
judicial district.
Mr.. Williamson opposed the motion
to change the place Of trial, and
claimed that the defendant coult
have Il fair and impartial trial in this
county. He insisted that, il there il
to be change Of the place of trial
that question should be passed upor
by the Judge to be called in.
Later in the argument, however
Messrs. Williamson and Lynn admit
ted that they feared that an errol
would be made If Judge Winchester
did not remove the case to another
county, and the judge granted the mo
tion for a change of venue on thei
suggestion, and moved the case to Nc
Intosh county. 1t will come up Il
the October term in that county.
In the case. of D. r. Streeter VS.. c
A. Patterson, suit for damages for
violation of contract, the jury rem
dercd verdict for plaintiff in tn
sum of 300. This case had been ii
court for more than a year and a half
The case grew out Of the purchase b,
plaintiff Of DEFENDANTS newspaper ii
the spring of 1899, under an agreemen
that defendant should not be connect
ed with the publication of newspap
er in Emmons county during the per
iod Of five years from the. date Of tn
contract.
A jury was secured in the case o
]. I. Case Machine Manufacturing Co
VS.. Anton X. Fischer. This was /,
foreclosure Of chattel mortgage. Mi
Fischer bought steam threshinI
machine Of the plaintiffs, and coul,
not make it work. Experts were sen
out by the company, but the engin
would not make enough steam, an,
the separator would not separate. Til
plaintiffs fought the case largely on /,
technicality, the point being that tn
defendant had not lived up to tn
contract and returned the machine t
Wishek. Instead Of doing this, he lef
1T on his farm and told the Case com
pany to come and take their machIn
away.
After the teatimony was all in, tn
plaintiffs attorney. Mr.. Turner, q
Fargo, moved that the court direct
verdict for s2,771.9S, and the motto
was granted.
1t is understood that the parties al
working to compromise the case as
4 at present stands.
A jury was secured In the case I
Teresa Malek0wski VS.. Weinstei
Bros, to recover money on a checI
4 The parties settled the case out Z