New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1906-12-12
DISTRICT COURT IN SESSION
Judge Olsen Begins his First Term
in Brown County.
Wesley Mueller Made Foreman of
the Grand Jury.
Thirty Civil and Three Criminal
Cases Now on the Calendar.


Gases Now on the Calendar.
The fall term of the district cour
for Brown County was convened yes
terday. At eleven O'Clock in the fore
noon, the new Judge took the seat thai
had been filled for SO many years by
Judge Weber, and Immediately AND
without ceremony of any kind started
the regular grind of legal business.
Mr.. Olsen makes dignified presiding
officer, and pronounces his orders and
decisions with all the ease of an old.
timer. .... ..-
After appointing the usual number
of bailiffs, Judge Olsen charged the
grand jury, naming Wesley Miller as
foreman, and then adjourned court for
lunch.
At the afternoon session the follow
ing disposition was made of the calen-
dar:
l John Holman VS. Daniel L. Will
hams. To be tried by a jury.
2 Minneapolis & St. Louis Rail-
road Co. VS. the County of Brown.
To be tried by the court in vacation.
This is an appeal from an order of the
county commissioners assessing the
railroad company for benefits growing
out of the construction of ditch, but
as the supreme court has recently de-
cided that the payment of a gross
earnings tax exempts railroad compa-
MES from ali other public taxes or as
sessments there can be no question as
to the findings of Judge Olsen in the
case at issue. He must decide for the
company. >'."~
3 Otis A. Fox. VS. John Eigen and
George Saffert. To be tried by jury.
4 M. J. Thelen VS. J. F. Porter and
P. H. Moan. Settled and dismissed.
5 VIM. Metzen VS. the County of
Brown. To be tried by the court in
vacation. This is another appeal
from an order of the board of county
commissioners assessing benefits for
the construction of a ditch.
6 Erdman Prahl VS. the County of
Brown. Same kind of case and same
disposition as in the foregoing action.
7 Nick Adams VS. the County of
Brown. Same kind of case and same
disposition as in foregoing action.
s In the matter of the adoption of
William Thomas Violet by Earl La
Cow and Myrtle La Cow. To beheard
by the court.
8 John Essig VS. Matthias Mauch
To be tried by the court on the 10Th of
December.
10 Andrew Hoecherl VS. William
Anderson and Albert Anderson. To
be tried by a jury.
IL Otto Triton VS. Henry Grund-
meyer. TO be tried by a jury.
IL City of Sleepy Eyevs Andrew j.
Eckstein and others. To be tried by
the court on demurrer.
l3 Peter Newdall VS. Adolph Sven
son. To be tried by a jury.
IA Adolph Swensen VS. Peter New
dali. TO be tried by jury.
Is Otto Schreyer VS.. Paul Falk,
Adolph Falk and Gustav Falk. To
be tried by a jury.
Is c. H. Hornburg VS. Fred Kretsch,
Frank Kretsch and W. A. Kastner.
70 be tried by a jury.
II Barbara Ubl VS. VIM. Nehls and
Elizabeth Nehls. To be tried by a
jury.
18 Jacob Klossner Jr., administra-
tor of the estate of Fred Kuehn, VS.
August Schwertfeger. Motion made
TO continue. If denied to be given a
jury trial.
10 William Woodbeck VS. John
Cuddy. A jury case, but continued by
reason of the judges disqualiications
to try it.
20 G. w. Chambard and F. T..
Chambard, as partners in the Hanska
Hardware Co., VS. Louis Geiger. A
jury case, but continued by reasons of
the judges disqualification to try it.
q Magdalena Soukup VS. Mike
BRANDED. To be tried by jury.