Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1907-09-27
in DISTRICT COURT
Quite a Number Of Cases
Disposed Of This
Week.

Ok
b Rum River Boom company, which
occunied the entire session Of the dis.
tict' court Thursday Of last wesk and
vent to the jury Friday morning. In
this case the plainti6 brought suit
against the Mississippi & Hum River
Boom Co. for the recovery Of dam.
aoes done to his property IN the spring
of 1907 by tho breaking up of . log
and ice Jam. which had formed ct tho
beginning of winter near Two Rivers,
where his property il located, the
logs being washed and scattered over
his land. This damage, the plaintiff
claimed was due to tho negligence Of
the employees of the company. The
plaintiff was offered certain sum of
money by the company in settle uent
at tho time tho damage was done but
the amount not proving satisfactory
the oi1er was not accepted. The jury
accompanied by Sheriff Long and
Deputy John Kuuza went down to the
scene Of the damage and looked over
the place . as to get clearer idea Of
tie affair, on motion mada by the
defense.
The case of Simon Kasella vs.. the
Northern Pacific railroad company,
which came up for trial Friday
afternoo On, was dismissed on motion
of the defendant on the grounds that
the Company had not been negligent
to such an extent as to warrant the
action taken by the plaintiff. In this
case the plaintiff attempted TO recover
dana yes for Injuries to hand while
Unloading rails last spring.
Cornelius E. Jackson VS.. G. B.
no a
calendar but when it came up for
trial plaintiff made motion to dismiss
the cass, and it was struck from the
cslsndar. The case was one in which
the plaintiff sought judgment for
So 500 and the Interest on that aro7nt
from October l. 1901, together with
the costs OF the action. Mr.. Jackson
alleged that upon the representation Of
the defendant that a certain piece Of
land wned by him in Morrison county
was valued at a certain sum which
proved to be Just dcubls the real value
o. it, and chat the title was clear,
which proved to be encountered with
mortgages amounting to $25, 900. he,
tee plaintiff, purchased at half inter-
est in the property offered by the
defendant. He later discovered the
true state of the property and brought
en- the above stated case The reason
for the dismissal is that the plaintiff
could not secure the witnesses d. sired
at this term of court The case will
be brought up again at the spring
term of conrt.
The sessions OF the district court
Saturday morning and the greater
part of the afternoon were taken up
by the case of Daniel Chilson VI.
Cornelius Kelley, through which case
tho plaintiff attempted to recover the
sum of $3.50 alleged to DO duo him
April Is. 1907. according to agree
ment, for work done on the defen-
dant 9 farm by himself and minor
children between November s, 1906
and April IL, 1907. A verdict favorlpg
the defendant was returned in this
case.
A motion was made BY tho attorneys
for the defense to set aside the in.
dictments against the defendants in
the casa Of State OF Minnesota VS..
Chas. Young and B. Burton. on the
grounds that the indictments we're
irres ular in that they did not conform
to law, and a number of technicalities
were given to substantiate the charge
and null the indictments. among
them being one in which an attorney
for the defense made affidavit; that
the county attorney and the assistant
county attorney were both present
before the grand jury, taking part in
the examination of witnesses at the
same time. and that according tc
law they had no right to do so. The
mott IN was argued for some time
Saturday afternoon and Monday, but
were finally denied. The case came
up for trial Monday and was post.
poned to the next term Of court on
account of one of the principal wit.
reses for the defense being absent.
The case of Josephine Mrozek vs.,
John Belz owski was settled out oil
court and when it came up for tris.
was dismissed.
The jury found that the Defendant
was the owner of certain liquor anc
saloon articles, and tho goods of it,
equivalent to the value of $45 is t:
bs returned to the defendant in thu
case of F. D. Leblanc vs.. E. s. Tan
ner. The case was over goods which
had been replevined by the plaintiff
In the case of State OF Minnesota vs.
Martin Lee which came up for tria
Monday morning and in which tn,
defendant was charged with grau(
larceny, the defendant pleaded guilt!
to petty larceny, when the jury wa
being impanelled, and was finei
900 or ninety days in Jail.
Lee was accused of taking sum o
money while in the White Front
saloon last spring, from Olaf K
Olson. and since that time has beel
iocarcerated in the county Jail.
In tho G. se of tho State vs...W. A
Zaloudek, charged with shipping yea
not properly wrapped was on motion
OF defendant. dismissed by the judge
The veal, it seems, was we'll wrapped
il its own hide. Tho claim Of tb<
state was that it shuold have beer
wrapped in cloth.
In tho case Of Frank 3hoppe Va
Raoch Malezski. paintl6 sued Il
rec ,ver $500, which he had paii