The Dickinson press., 1905-10-28
DISTRICT COURT.

~ T--. N'.r't>
MICHAEL. HAAS CoNvIcTEDSoF
NEGLIGENCE IN LETTING
PRAIRIE FIRE GET OUT. EN-
Ma HERBERT WINS CASE A.
GAINST ~. w. RYDER. COURT.
May LAST ANOTHER,WEEK.
Judge Winchester opened court on
Tuesday and it looks now as though
there would be work the smos, Of The.
coming week should all Of the cases be,
disposed of. {
The only criminal case tried is that$of
Michael Haas. On the 9th OF last April
defendant let a prairie fire get away
from his farm south of Richardson,
which caused considerable damage to
neighbors. Paul LEM was the COM
planning witness and the charge under
which the complaint was issued was
negligence. Haas did not deny the
existance of the fire but claimed that his
vile set it without his consent. This
story the jury did not credit, bringing in
a verdict of guilty, recommending that
the sentence of the our be light. Ac-
cordingly the court fixed the fine at $40,
the minimum.
Frank Baker, assistant states attor-
ney, stated to the jury that it was not
SO much his intention to punish this par
ticular party as it was to make an ex-
ample, to the end that people should be
careful about letting fires outside
their own guards.
H. c. Berry, defendants attorney,
thought the prairie fire law was a very
had one.
This is the first conviction under the
law in this part of the state and it is of
unusual importance to farmers and
ranchers alike. 1t is not necessary
under this law to show that the offender
is guilty of anything more than gross
negligence.
Emma Herbert VS.. D. w. Ryder, a
civil case, was concluded Thursday fore:
noon and the jury awarded plaintiff s25o
with interest from December, Ioc2,
Plaintiff claims that after her marriage
to Sid Herbert, who was employed a,
the D. w. Ryder ranch near Belfeld
it was agreed that she was to have a
salary az housekeeper at the Ryder
ranch. On the contrary, defendant
claimed that there had never been any
such agreement; the plaintiff. came to
the ranch as the wife of Sid Herbert,
employed by him, and he considered i,
quite enough that he should have fur.
nished the table, etc. L. A Simpson
prosecuted. Mcbride & Baker were
assisted bv M. A. HiIdreth. A motion
for a new trial was denied and the case
will likely 60 to the supreme court.
The case of Sid Herbert vs.. D. w
Ryder was dismissed on the ground tina,
plaintiff had failed to file a bill of par.
ticulars. The same council appeared ir
this. case asin the preceding one. -.
There were some fire works when the
case of Charles Montague VS.. Michae
Lally ct al. was called. L. A. Simpson
who but recently came into the case
appeared for Messrs. Peake and Brodie
the real defendants. A. +. Patterson
appeared for plaintiff, and after these
attorneys had finished their wordy com
bat, the listeners were little the wiser as
to facts other, than that plat tiff WI:
allowed to prove up the claim. TIE
case is to be r%e-oPened, however.
Mary |. Lane VS.. Zenith Coal 20. was
still on FRIDAY morning. Mrs. La Z
seeks to get some $500 which she claims
to be due her for services as housekeep'
er. Simpson for plaintiff, Crawford &
Burnett for def. n liant.
Fred Koesel VS.. Ole Gulickson was
settled out of court, defendant giving ur
MIR. Koesel's cattle without any further
trouble.