Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1905-02-16
THE BIG HARVEST is NOW OVER
The Harvest for the Lawyers is Over
and no Small One Did it Prove
to be.-The Local Bar
Made Good
Showing.

The case of Giblin VS. Rich, as sheriff
of day county, resulted in verdict for
the plaintiff.
The case of McClasky VS. Wickre was
continued over the term.
The case that has attracted the most
general interest during the term was
that of Dibble VS. Gross & Co. More
than day was consumed in the trial of
this case. The plaintiff claimed dam
ages in the sum of $1,000, basing the
claim on the fact that the filing papers
were changed and consequently he
filed on a quarter other than what he
intended. Dibble contended that the
change was made without his authority
while the defendants contention was
that Dibble wanted four quarters in a
body and so stated at the time of filing
and the change was necessary to secure
this result The evidence although
conflicting on several points developed
the fact that he had made no complaint
to the defendants So far as they knew
he was satisfied with the transaction
and this fact was patent on the face of
his actions, as he held the claim about
a year, built shanty, put up some hay
and it was still in his possession. To
the uniformed it appeared as if there
was something back of this case that
did not appear in the evidence. 1t was
one of the hardest legal battles of the
term and was ably handled by both
sides, K. w. Taylor, of the firm of
Campbell & Taylor, appearing for the
plaintiff and Frank Sears taking care of
the defendants interest The case was
given to the jury at 10 o'clock Saturday
morning and they brought in sealed
verdict in the afternoon, court having
adjourned until Monday. The verdict
was for the plaintiff in the sum of $24. 30
which is practically verdict for the
defendants as the plaintiff will have to
pay tine costs of the action. The two
other cases of Dibble vs.. Gross & Co.
were carried over the term by agree.
ment and it is likely that there will
be no appearance on the part of the
plaintiff at the next term.
In the case Of johnson We. Rich az
sheriff, the court directed verdict fol
the plaintiff ON all the issues.
In the case Of Causon vs.. Malmbere
the court directed q verdict for defend.
ant.
The case of Sherard VS.. Rich, az
sheriff, was disposed Of by q directed
verdict Of defendant.
| In the case of Shackford w. Purdum
there was no defense and verdict fol-
the plaintiff was directed.
Tuesday when the case of Evanger
w. Evanger was called the Judge did
feel warranted in trying the case dur.
ing the absence Of Thos McKennett
and Tim Loomis 90 recess was taker
until they could be brought into court
After the case was heard the court, BY
and with the consent Of the above
named gentlemen, granted the decres
and almony for the support Of the chile
in the sum Of 800 per annsm.
The diverse case Of Ernest vs.. Ernes,
was heard Wednesday and taken unde
advisement by the court.
The case of J. 1. Case Threshin,
Machine 90. w. G. o. and Il. o. Tho
was next called. The defendants wer
held under arrest and bail proceeding
John Lund appeared for the defendant
and argued motion for the discharg
of the prisoners, which was granted.
81 The court heard the arguments in tn
case Of Durland ct al vs. McFadden en-
, took the case under advisement.
!, In the case Owens VS.. Cotton til
answer was withdrawn and the Cas-
dismissed.
The jury was discharged wednesda
morning and court adjourned until til
: July term. Judge Mccoy and Reporte
Granger went to Aberdeen ON tn
evening tram. The Judge will hol
chambers in Aberdeen Saturday an
open tsrm Of court at sisseton Tue
. day.
. Notcs.
: When any one says that arrest "a
hail procedure is mot imprisonment (,