Barbour County index., 1909-02-17

uieic were rev staple goods and most OF
the stock was out Of date according to
evidence detailed by Mr.. Circles
witnesses. ]. NJ. Miller of Kiowa was
the real estate dealer who had charge of
the deal. He and Mr.. Circle could not
agree on the facts and each claimed that
il any Misrepresentation had been made
to Mrs. Potter. the other made them.
Circle testified that he listed the land with
Miller & Lawrence at $500 and that
it was agreed that the firm should keep
all above that sum they could sell for.
Miller testified in rebuttaI at the call Of
Mrs. Potters attorneys and his test-
mony clearly showed that there were
strained relations between him and Circle.
The case went to the jury at 8 o'clock
Saturday afternoon and verdict was re-
turned finding for the defendant. Mrs.
Potter, about 2 o'clock A. NJ. Sunday.
The verdict awards the defendant
toth judgement Of $500, which in
cludes note given her by plaintiff for
lease on land, and $1,000 damage by
virtue Of the trade. The effect of the
verdict not only loses Circle his entire
section Of land, but he is also loser over
S. 1000 more plus attorneys fees and
costs. The fact that the defendant was a
widow woman together with the fact that
she had three men to deal with-Cucle,
Miller and Cully-had a great influence
in shaping the verdict. The further fact
that both Miller rand Gully testified against
Circle was also damaging to him. The
transaction was anything but commend
able all the way through and even the
lady defendant could hardly be said to
be held entirely blameless.
Special questions were submitted to
the jury and it required several hours for
the jurors to figure out answers to them.
How well they succeeded in answering
them in harmony with the law and evi-
dence is matter upon which lawyers
differ. The special question law is a
special nuisance.
MI. Circle has taken steps to appeal
the case to the supreme court and it looks
like long drawn out litigation.
Circle was represented by Seward |.
Field Of this city. J. D. Houston Of Wichi-
ia and F. F. Perry Of Kiowa. The
defendant was represented by Noble &
Iincher Of this city and Cloud & Cloud
Of Cherokee, Oklahoma.
L. E. Cavanaugh vs.. ]. E. Goodan,
Judgment for plaintiff in the sum Of $4O3,
and garnishee ordered to pay money in
to court.
I'M. Miller VS.. C. Pfaf judgment
for plaintiff in the sum Of $4,000.
Judgment quietng title was granted IN
the following cases:
J. c. Higgins vs.. Samuel Hinton, de-
ceased; Bertha Rumsey vs.. w. AHop-
kins; Seward |. Field VS.. L. C. Peck.
CD. Rackley. H. H. Case and Jack
Williams were appointed to partition the
real estate in the McCracken partner
ship, which is the estate Of the late E. l.
McCracken and c. T. McCracken. The
proceeding is for the purpose Of dissolv-
ing the partnership and making settlement
the Of estate of the deceased.
The divorce case Of Newkirk VS.. New
kirk was taken up Monday.
There is nothing particularly sensa
tional about the trouble. Ed and hi
wife do not seem to be able to live in
harmony. She charges that he neglect
her but her accusations are much mildel
than is the custom in most divorce cases.
and as a matter Of fact she has more tc
say in criticism Of her mother-in-law than
her husband. She claims that her feel.
ings have often been wounded by the
elder Mrs. Newkirk. On account o.
the condition Of the defendants eyes and
his inability to do n work, he anc
his wife lived most {. the time with hi
parents and the young wife was not sat.
| is6ed. The plaintiff left the defendan
several months before bringing suit. The
defendant and his parents denied all the
material charges made by the plaintiff.
| q M Martin of fhis citv and n r