The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1907-08-14
ELKS CASE TO
Be DECIDED
JUDGE MASON SETS DALE FOR
BEADING or ISL AT
G MORO iNTovvil.

Jt99SE nlH1SA SEsAp 6ff5s-, ~
HEADING or CASE AT
q MORO AiSTovsil.
1IoRGANToWrsj Aug Ipdge
John w. Mason Of the Marion Ion
i.ongalia circuit has called q special
term cf the mongolia Circuit Court
f6r Friday; Anglst 18th at nine
O'Clock. He has given notice TO Cir
cut Clerk John shriyer that he VIII
decide a number Of cases, several Of
which; nave d large amount Of public
interest and all Of which are import
ant because Of the legal points in
VOWED. The case which Will proba;j
bly, interest the public most keenly
is that ~ the State Of West Virginia
against the Elks lodge, Of Morgan.
town. The Rlks lodge It will be re.
Numbered was indicted by the grand
jury for the Illegal sale OF Intoxicating
liquors to members. The motion to
iquash the Indictment was oyerruled,
and the case was submitted to the
court on an agreed state Of facts. At
.torneys for the Elks prepared a state
ment Of the manner in which the prac-
tice Of serving liquor to the members
is carried on, the aims and purposes
of the organization and the club, and
the methods employed in running the
club. These facts were submitted to
the prosecuting attorney, who agreed
that the ground was covered, and the
whole question Of the guilt or. limo,
cence Of the club was then left to the
court. If Judge Mason finds that un:
der the facts as submitted to MIN, the
club is guilty Of an offense, he will
impose a fine. If he finds otherwise,
he will dismiss the cases.
The court will render a decision In
the case Of James A. Comley and
wife against Wesley Ford. This is q
suit brought by the plaintiffs to en-.
force the contract for the sale Of three
veins Of coal in cass districts. The
defendant was to pay five cents for
coal mined from one vein, six cents
for another and eight cents for anoth'
er. The defendant mined no coal
whatever, and did not even take pos
session Of the tract. The case involves
some knotty points, and has given the
court considerable difficulty.
The court will rule on the demur
rer to the plaintiffs bill in the suit
of Greenberrys Barrlckman, ex.sherift
against his deputy, D. Q. Core. Bar
rlckman sues to collect the interest
on taxes and other moneys which he
claims were paid to Core. The de-
PENDANT demurred to the bill, and the
court has had the demurrer under ad.
visement since the last term Of court.
Another knotty problem to be soly-
ed is involved in the case of Peter
Tenants heirs against A. E. Fretts
and others. The plaintiffs brought
suit to annul an old coal option, held
by Fretts and Allison. Both defend
ants are non-residents. Fretts APP
peared in court here, but Allison has
never done so. The courts have held
that contract cannot be enforced
against nonresident. Is the con.
verse true-can contract with non+
resident be cancelled? Fretts having
appeared here, a decree of cancella-
ton might be entered as to him, but
he is joint owner with Allison, and a
decree would have to be given against
both. These are some Of the ques.
tons raised by the attorneys for the
parties.
A decree is to be entered confirm
ing the sale Of the Anderson farm,
unless there is an upset bid, and
the case of ]. H. McDermott against
j. w. Hartigan is to be decided. This
is a suit to collect about $500, claim
ed by the plaintiff to be due from the
defendant for a share of expenses in
operating an oil lease.
The members of the bar generally
are interested in these cases and
theret will be a large attendance Of
attorneys to hear the decisions Of