Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1907-03-22
DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT COURT
The case of N. Burton & Co. VS..
Wilson Bros. of Park Rapids, acccu.
pied the entire session of court last
| Friday and concluded Saturday morn.
| ing
The plaintiff alleged that he fur
rished goods to John F. Kennedy, as
per contract made with Wilson Bros
IL 1908, to the amount of 1915 and that
none of this sum had been paid.
The defendant claimed that settle
ment had been made, partly by pay
ment and partly because the plaintiff
had not furnished the goods as agreed,
John F. Kennedy stating that he
had often, curing that winter, ap-
piled for supplies of plaintiff and was
unable to get them.
Much evidence was introduced from
account books. etc., by both sides and
it was not until late Saturday morning
that all the evidence had been taken,
and then the jury went out. The jury
returned at o'clock with. a verdict
in favor Of defendant and assessing
costs to plaintiff.
Mr.. Burton, the plaintiff, stated
that 70 doubt the case would be ap-
pealed.
The entire days session OF the..dis-
trict court was taken up Monday by
the case of state of Minnesota VS. Juli
us GolZ, as was also Tuesday morning.
The grand jury indicted the defendant
for grand larceny which consisted of
having stolen, from the land of G. A.
Sprandel, in the town of Ripley. logs,
wood and lum ber to the value Of $780,
TIE plaintiff testified that about ten
loads of logs had been stolen by the
defendant, and caused testimony 10 90
used showing that tops had been cut
from trees recently cut. Considerable
uiItoulty WAS met in ascertaining
whsther wood was taken from G. A.
Sprandels land or from John Wetzsl' s
land on which defendant claimed he
had been giyec the right to take dead
wood.
The evidence In the case having
been completed, the jury went out be-
fore noon, and in a little mora than an
hour returned with verdict Of not
guilty for the defendant.
The case Of state of Minnesota VS..
Samuel P]ante was tried Tuesday
afternoon.
In this case which Is simular to
that of the state VS.. Julius Goiz, c.
A. Sprandel was plaintiff and about
the same witnesses testified in this
case as in the case Of Golz, the charge
being that of stealing wood.
The case against Plante seemed to
be pretty strong as the evidence was
given, especially 40 when two of the
witnesses swore positively that they
had seen aid talked with him while
he cut down a tree on Sprandel' g
land.
The jury returned verdict Of not
gailty.
The next case 70 be brought up was
that of the state of Einnesota VS.
Adam Patyk, the charge being that of
cutting and steaing timber belonging
to to John Perovitz. The chief wit
nesses, Michael Sohreinher and his
son agreed in their testimony that
| they had seen defendant cut and haul
timber or January % from land be-
longing john Perovitz while he
was attending a wedding.
The defense tried to show that the
whole case had been bEou xht against
the defendant as the result of spite
work on the part of Schreiner.
I After being out some time the jury
could not agree and were discharged.
IN tie case -, Of tie State vs.. the Ful-
Ter Bros. S. e. Belts, complaining
witness, the case was dismissed.
Belts claimed that a watch which he
lest was taken by them when he
was showing them the goods about
ten o'clock in the morning. He did
not, however, notice that the watch
was missing until six O'Clock of the
same day. The testimony of j. c.
Johnson. the druggist, who it was
claimed was in the store, and is now, in
Idaho, consequently that particular
time, which was IN the interim be-
tween the time the watch was sup
posed to have been stolen and the
time it was found to be missing, was
not accounted fer in the State S
evidence. It is presumed of course
that the goods might have been stolen
in the time not accounted for.
The case of the State vs. the
Rackowskl Bros, F. j. Stroschein,
complaining Witness case over the
obstruction of thess ighway, was dis
missed or account of an error in the
Indictment. The section in the descrip-
ton should have read %, instead OF
20.
The case of Jos. Hennen of st. Paul
VS.. P. 81. Berg, where plaintiff
claimed commission on some lane
sold by Berg, was dismissed. insufici
ent evidence having been furnished by
plaintiff.