Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-01-23
Montezuma Jury Gives Him
$1O,389--Also Case Of Too
Much Son-in-law
sELDEN STEER CASE DockETED
The Stub Horn and Long Tail, or Long
Horn and Stub Tail, to Be Discussed
ct a New Trial to Determine Wheth-
or eeIden Stole the Steer - Mother
Moraan's Farm Saved to Her.
Special to Times-Republican.

case Of Kirkpatrick VS.. London Guar
antee and Accident Company, after al
hours deliberation returned verdlc'
for Kirkpatrick this morning for the
full amount of his $4,000 policy AND
interest Of $3S9.40, since June 80 last
This is the second trial and the second
time q jury has awarded a verdict Tor
Kirkpatrick. The first trial was in
Judge SCOTS court, where similar
amount. less the difference in interest
was awarded. There will probably be
an appeal. as the insurance company is
determined to wear out the plalntlit
with costs of litigation. The Neville
VS.. Belden steer case Is assigned for
Friday.
The court is grinding out a great
big grist. This is the third week, with
the end of the calendar not in sight
It is not now probable that the docket
can be cleared. Nearly every case call
ed is ready for trial, but more or less
of it must go over to Judge. Clements
in March.
After the case just decided, Kirkpat-
rick VS.. London Guarantee and Acct
dent Insurance, is concluded, the court
will take up the criminal cases. After
they are disposed of there are two
trifling jury cases, Myers VS.. Shaw,
that may be tried, and then comes
Kirkpatrick vs.. Aetna Life Insurance
Company, involving the same legal
propositions and the same defenses as
the case now on trial, and after that,
il the end OF the term has not been
reached, the famous Neville VS.. Belden
case will be on the boards once more.
This Is the case involving steer with
q stub horn and long tail, or a stub
tail and q long horn, or two horns
with no tail at all.
Monday morning the court disposed
OF two cases in the equity docket-Jen-
kins VS.. jenkins, (divorce), and Alex
ander VS.. Morgan (partition). Both
have Interested Grinnell people be-
cause all the parties cone from Grim
nell. Anna J. jenkins was the wife of
4 Ambrose Jenkins, who Owns a fine
farm east of Grinnell. She sued for di-
yorce, alleging desertion in law, not in
fact, and cruel and inhuman treatment.
Her case was not a strong one, but
when the court heard the woman's
story Of the years of persistent neglect.
and unfeeling conduct, he promptly
severed the bonds; the custody of the
boy is given to the mother. and ALI
mony as provided in decree, is $1,000.
The other case, Alexander VS.. Nor
gan, was simply a case of too much
son-in-law, as one of the lawyers put
it. Fifteen years ago Cash Morgan
died, leaving wife, six little tots and
16o acres of land, heavily incumbered.
Mrs. Morgan, worn little body, gath
cred her brood about her and UNDER
took the fight and with the aid Of good
advisors, she won. She took the life
insurance, payable to her, and money
given her by her father and Mr.. Nor
gans father, and cleaned off the mort
cages and paid all the debts. The land
then was worth $40, now it is worth
$40. The children grew to manhood
and womanhood and the two older girls
married.
Always, there had been the utmost
devotion to mother ana children. About
six months ago, all the children but
one being of age, they went to q
lawyer, and the five children of age, in
consideration of the mothers care, and
Of the fact that she had enhanced the
value of the estate by putting her own
means into 1t, entered into a written
agreement to sell to the mother the
Anterest Of each for $1,000 each. When
the making of this contract came to
the ears of the husbands, there was
music in the air and before the time
set for concentrating the contract. the
two married girls brought a suit of
partition. The mother, being ignorant
Of legal procedure, and being assured
by the husbands and wives, plaintiffs.
that it meant nothing but placing the
title in her, let default be taken. A
decree was entered, shares established,
referee and appraisers appointed.
It happened that two o.. the apprais-
ers had been intimate friends of Nor
gan. deceased, and feeling that the
selling of the farm was mistake,
questioned the widow, when all the
facts came out. Under their advice,
Mrs. Morgan consulted an attorney,
who promptly filed motion to set
aside the default, and this was sus-
tanned after an unpleasant cross ex-
animation Of the several affiants.
The court remarked that a mother
like that should not be defrauded by
undutiful children in his court. The
case will now be tried on Its merits.
Kirkpatrick VS.. London Guarantee &
Accident Company was IL stubbornly
fought case. The trial is almost an ex-
act reproduction of the trial in Judge
SCOTS court in November, commented
on by the T.-R.
The defendant pleads fraud in pro-
curing the insurance, and the deliber-
ate act of the plaintiff as the cause of
the loss Of his hand.
Whatever truth there Is in defend
ants claim that the plaintiff made
false statements, 1t can not be shown,
because the defendant, in his anxiety
to evade the law, failed to comply with
Section 1741 of the Code Judge Gle
lnents held with the plaintiff; Judge
Scott held with the plaintiff, and SO
instructed; and now Judge, Preston has
stated that his view of the law is
the same. As to the claim
Of wilful injury there has been not a
particle of testimony given. To those
familiar with the case, II is apparent |
that the defendant company has a
ssak defense, and yet lots. Of money is |
4