The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1909-09-09
September Term of Circuit
Court To Offer Interesting
Questions for the Jury
CRIMINAL CALENDAR SHORTER
Municipal Court has Disposed of so
Many Minor Cases That but Four
Criminal Cases are Placed on the
Regular Court Calendar.

Clerk of the Circuit Court Waldo
has completed the work of making up
the calendar for the regular September
term Of the court which opens on
next Monday morning and the term
promises to be a busy one. Nearly
forty cases have been noticed for trial.
The criminal calendar, however, is a
very short one as many of the cases
for minor offenses have been taken
care of in the Municipal Court. The
calendar shows that there will be
twenty-four jury cases, ten court cases
and four criminal cases tried at the
coming term The most important
case on this calendar is the case
against Tanning & Hoye for the test
of the pure food laws of the state and
it is certain that this case will be bit
terly contested. The only other case
Of interest is the case of the state
against Charles Beemer.
There are many big personal injury
cases to be tried and in addition to
this there are a number Of very spicy
cases for divorce and for libel
The most important court case is the
suit brought by the Milwaukee attor-
neys against promoters Haynes and
Clausen of the electric railway to col
lect fees alleged to be due to them.
The cases noticed for trial are as
follows:
Criminal Cases.
State of Wisconsin, plaintiff VS..
Charles Beemer, defendant.
State, of Wisconsin, plaintiff VS..
Thomas Thorne, ct al, defendant.
State of Wisconsin, plaintiff, VS..
Oscar Carter, defendant.
State of Wisconsin plaintiff, VS..
w. j. Tanning and Oliver P. Hoye,
trading under the firm name of Fan
ming & Hoye, defendants.
Issues of Fact for Jury
Mary Bolotri, plaintiff VS.. Christian
Norgaard, defendant.
Racine Stone Company, a corpora
tion, plaintiff VS.. North Shore Fuel &
Supply Co., a corporation, defendant.
William schmorrow, plaintiff VS..
Mary Kneipp, defendant.
Margaret Mcbride, plaintiff VS..
Henry sevey, defendant.
Charles Cooper & Co., corporation
| plaintiff VS.. Charles w. Allen and
Nathan Allen, co-partners, doing bust
ness under the firm name and style of
n R. Aliens Sons, defendants.
Jorgen Fredson, plaintiff VS.. John
Clausen, defendant.
Hans Nelson, an infant, by his
guardian ad Item, plaintiff VS.. John
Kettlehut, defendant.
o. Yates, plaintiff VS.. James H
O'Brien, defendant.
Louis Morganstine, plaintiff VS.
Nicholas Gloss and Charles Pfennig
defendants
Thomas B. Jeffrey and Kate E.
Jeffrey, plaintiffs vs.. Chicago & Mil
waukee Electric Railroad Co., defen
dant.
Jorgen Fredson, plaintiff VS.. Theo
dore Kerst defendant
John 7. McRae, plaintiff, VS.. Frank
Kuhn, defendant.
Henry F. Jordan, as admir-, of the
estate of George 0. Field, deceased
plaintiff vs.. W. Irving Osborne, D. B
Hanna, George G. Moore, as receivers
of the Chicago & Milwaukee Electric
R. R. Co, a corporation, defendants
Edward Donahue, plaintiff VS.. Will
liam Gunter, defendant.
Clayton Lucas, plaintiff, VS.. Charles
III. PfeDnig, defendant.
Armour & Co., corporation, plain
tiff vs. Justus George Richter, J. Louis
Pofahl ana j. II. Pofahl, defendants
Frederick A. Booth, plaintiff VS.
Mary E. Dooth, defendant.
/ Frank R. Jacoby, plaintiff. VS.. w
Irving Osborne, D. B. Hanna, and
George G. Moore, receivers for the
Chicago & Milwaukee Electric R. R
Co. "a corporation, defendants.
Christ A. Kaelber and Frank J
Kraft, co-partners, plaintiffs vs.. join
Monaghan, defendant.
! Fred Alpreeht, plaintiff vs.. james
Buckley, defendant.
! Matthias Mungen, plaintiff, VS.. Clar
ence White and Matthias Brockhaus
co partners, defendants.
Mary A. MeCarron, plaintiff VS.. "
Irving Osborne. D. B. Hanna and