Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1907-05-22
DISTRICT COURT.

was case IN which Caroline Hin
zey was plaintiff and A. Mitchell
was defendant. Both parties reside
near Kiowa. The parties are Sister
and brother and went to court to
secure an accounting and settle
ment in business transactions. 1t
came up from the justice court at
Kiowa. In that court the plaintiff
secured a judgment for Sis. The
defendant appealed and the result
of the last trial was a judgment for
plaintiff in the sum of 70 cents.
Before going to trial the defendant
offered to pay all costs and quit but
his offer was rejected. The final
result is that defendant pays a judg.
ment of 70 cents, court costs, his
witness and attorney fees. Plain
tiff pays her witnesses and her at.
torneys but has the advantage of
having 70 cents in a sinking fund,
but since she had three attorneys
on the pay roll while the defendant
had only one, there is practically
no difference in the amount that
each has to pay for the little fam
lily quarrel. The result is what is
known among lawyers as "dog-
fall, which is generally the result
when two people rush into court to
settle trihes. Noble & Tincher and
Walter L. Owen were plaintiffs
attorneys and Seward l. Field, de-
fendant's. By agreement the case
was submitted to jury of only six
men, as follows:
Bert Evans Mayhem Keithley
The next case was also an appeal
from justice court in which G. F.
Henson and D. M.Circle, both of
Kiowa, were plaintiff and defend
ant. This trial resulted in a dis
agreement and the case will be
for trial again in October if no
settlement is reached.
Henson contracted with Circle
for SO calves aid paid $500 to
bind the contract. Circle deliver
ed SO calves but Henson refused to
accept them claiming they were
not the class of calves contracted
for. Circle then shipped the calves
and claimed to have lost $I08 by
the transaction.
Plaintiff sued in Justice court for
$500, money advanced, and $1oo
damage. He got a verdict for
$500. Circle appealed to district
court. The last jury disagreed.
Each juror seemed to have different
figures. This was another 'dog-
fall in the court below and will
end with both parties being out of
good money. The parties could
save money by settling out of court.
Noble & Tincher and Walter l..
Owen represent plaintiff and Sew
ard |. Field and Riley Cloud rep
resent defendant.
The jury was as follows:
4. Il. hea0 Lewis ia 6iQlng
Mayhew Keithley Bert Evans
Homer Hoagland j. C. Larkin
On Thursday the big damage
suit of w. H. Brownback VS.. ]. R.
Holmes was reached. This was
real law suit. The petty issues
that had burdened the court before
were not in evidence here. Brown
back sued Holmes for $4,000 dam
age. Both own land in the same
enclosure and pastured cattle joint
ly. 1t is alleged that Holmes was
responsible for burning off range
and destroying timber, that he in.
terfered with fences, all to the
damage of plaintiff in the sum of
$4,000.
When the suit was filed Brown
back secured an injunction in pro-
bate court restraining Holmes from
pasturing more than 200 cattle and
ordering him not to interfere with
fences, etc This order was after
ward modified by the district court
increasing the number of cattle to
400.
Before the trial began a few pre-
liminary matters were disposed of.
Defendant asked to have the in
junction dissolved and motion was
overruled. Same ruling on de-
murrer. Defendant was permitted
to file answer over plaintiffs OBJ
lection.
On account of an insufficient
number of Jurors on regular panel,
Judge Gillett ordered a special
venire of I8 Barber county citizens
composed of the following:
D, L. Iford H. Il, Case
]. B. Gauo J.W. Brown
B. b. Hood e. Shore
Scott Circle S-Waiuseott
g. W. Lott r. r. Froman
| Geo. Lands A D. Shaw
Lester white Jas Dobbs
8. L. Dicks A. W. Flint