The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1904-02-17
AROUND THE COURT HOUSE
AND THE TEMPLE OF JUSTICE
Several Civil Actions Disposed Of
Court May Adjourn Next r1on-
day-GeneraI rIatters.

When The Herald went to press last
Wednesday the superior court and a jury
was engaged in trying the civil action
of a. i. Gray vs.. Joshua Swindler. 1t
was a suit on store bill for $500, II. j
Snively appearing for the plaintiff and
Snyder & Preblc for the defense. The
trial of the case occupied most of We'd
nesday and did not 90 to the jury until
about 2:l5 Thursday afternoon. 1t re-
turned verdict for the plaintiff for
S7s4.lO.
Baxter VS.. George Mckay, suit over
an account involving about $500. The
difficulty arose over land lease, the
plaintiff claiming that he had advanced
money to the defendant to farm the
tract and the two disagreed when it
came to q final settlement. The jury
got the case at S:45 Thursday evening
and remained out all night, returning a
sealed verdict Friday morning. 1t was
opened in court Monday morning and
was for the plaintiff in the sum of $3l %
Fred Parker was the attorney for the
plaintiff and Judge i. b. Preble for the
defense.
Friday being Lincon's birthday court
adjourned until Monday morning, the
jury being excused until that time.
1'ne case of the Yakima Land & Cattle
company VS.. Julius Ribail was set for
trial on Thursday. 1t is a suit for dam
ages for $1,000, the allegation being set
up that defendant encroached on the
land of the plaintiff to Craze his sheep.
State VS.. Sam Jackson was set for
trial Thursday The defendant is an
Indian and is charged with embezzlng
some 40 odd dollars of which he was the
custodian for another Indian.
The celebrated case of Kellogg & Ford
VS.. $. J. Lowe was then called for trial.
1t was an action for $4,000 damages
by reason of plaintiffs having theid Ii
cense annulled to sell liquor in Lowe 5
building on Yakima avenue Lowe own
ed other property on the block and in
cluded it in the petition to the city coun-
ell against the granting of the license,
but did not include the lot on which
defendants were doing business. They
count of losing their license and had to
put up building of their own. A jury
was called on motion of the court, but
the case was withdrawn from the jury
and tried by the court, which rendered
Judgment for the defendant for costs
1t is said the case will be appealed to
the supreme court. Graves & Englehart
for the plaintiff and II. J. Snivcly for
defendant.
Tuesday morning the case of Paul G.
Kruger vs.. r. II. Weber was taken up
the defendant claiming about $3.50 due
him as agent of plaintiffs nursery. The
case took up the day, going to the jury
at o'clock. 1t returned a verdict at
about 8 o'clock of $75 for plaintiff.
In the case of 7. L. Martin vs.. John
Wetzel, after plaintiff had testified judg-
ment was ordered in his favor in accord
ance with the pleadings. 1t was a suit
for balance of the premium on an in
surance policy. Snyder & Preble fol
plaintiff and w. NJ. Thompson for de-
| Tense.
Next Monday will probably be SEN
tence day and it is thought court may
adjourn about the middle of the week.
| The case of j. III. Fanbion vs.. G. C.
Lee and wife, a writ of attachment, is
the first case called today, Wednesday
1t is suit on chattels to recover $249
H. J. Snively for plaintiff and Whitson
& Parker for defense.