The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1909-12-24
DISTRICT COURT ADJoURNs
Judge Burr DIsmIsses Case Of Mary
Anderson VS.. Arcade Bergeron.

Judge Burr Dlsmlsses Case Of Mary
Anderson VS.. Arcade Bereeron.
Judge A. G. Burr adjourned
the November term of district
court yesterday morning, the
court having been in adjourned
session since Monday.
The only case of Importance
to come up was that of Mary
Anderson VS.. Arcade Bergeron.
! Mrs. Anderson sued Bergeron
for $4,000, alleging malicious
prosecution. Mrs. Anderson
and her husband were tried at
the February term of court on
the charge of stealing wheat
from Bergeron and both were
acquitted. After hearing the
testimony of the plaintiff, Judge
Burr granted the defendant 8
motion to dismiss the action.
In the case of Dougal Martin
vs.. N. G. Wegner. administrator
of the estate of F. w. Seidel,
the jury brought in a verdict
for the plaintiff for $93, the
amount asked. Martin sued
for pay for caring for the stock
and property of the estate dur
ing the summer after the
murder of Seidel and his niece.
Harvey Walker, through his
attorney, pleaded guilty to
embezzlement and was fined
500 and costs amounting to
$50.
Thomas Sigerseth of Mohall
was before the court Wednes-
day charged with contempt. He
was recently the defendant in
a divorce action and had failed
to pay over 5000 to his divorced
wife as directed by the judg-
mentof the court. He was given
ten days in which to produce
the coin. *1
The case of the state VS..
George Charboneau, charged
with embezzlement, was dis
missed, on motion of the de-
fendant's attorney.
In the case of Hans Twete VS..
James A.: Powers, Isabel A..
Powers, r. F. FELTON,, garnishee,
the plaintiffs motion for judg-
ment was granted.
The jury in the case of O. NJ.
johnson VS.. the Farmers Lum-
Der company found for the
plaintiff and assessed damages
in the amount of $71 with in
terest at z per cent from Jam
uary 1, 1906. johnson was in
the employ of the defendant
lumber company and sued to
recover wages he claimed due
him. The company dismissed
him from their employ No.
vember IL, 1905, but Johnson
claimed he had a prior agree
ment with them to work until
January 1, 1906.
The jury returned a verdict
for $65. 81, with interest at Z per
cent from June 26. 1909, in the
case of John Russell VS.. John
Kunkel. Russell was employed
as a farm hand by Kunkel and
the suit was to settle dispute
over wages.
The defendant admitted
Judgment against him for the
amount asked for in the COM
plant, without costs, in the
case of the Dakota Develop
ment company VS.. Carl Ehlke.
The case of the state VS.. Roy
Bates, charged with forcing
Mabel Scholfield to marry him,
has been continued.
The following cases have
been continued over the term:
The Minneapolis Threshing
Machine company VS.. George
Mead; Mrs. v. L. Bailey VS..
John McPhea; DIR. w. HI.
GOdfrey, respondent, VS.. mans
Twete, appellant; T. A. Gray
VS.. Harry Bennett ct all, Burns
Shuman VS.. Stephens & Schlos-
ser Implement company; Ma
tional Elevator company VS..
w. III. Bennett ct al; Win
field Root, respondent, VS..
Napoleon Cote, appellant; J..
III. Kenner vs.. ]. McEligo,; Ma
tional Drill and Manufacturing e
company vs.. Renville township;
Carl Bergquist vs.. w. c..
Mcintyre; Adolph Kadletz VS..
b. F. FELTON, etal.; NJ. b.
Kortgaard vs.. Village of Kram-
err.
The following cases have
been settled and stricken from
the calendar: ]. ]. Stephens,
respondent, vs.. Duncan Nc
Il