Barbour County index., 1910-03-02

udy III April. he lntlmated that
without going into the matter
more fully, he was inclined to be.
lieve that the contract is taxable.
The case will be carried up to the
supreme court regardless of Judge
Gillett's decision. There is a feel
ing on both sides that this matter
should be decided so that no ques.
tion can arise in the future and
hence the supreme court will get
the last guess. The Index made
this statement once before and was
sharply criticised by Col. Mac
Gregor for making it. Now, how
ever, he admits that he will appeal
in the event that Judge Gillett de-
nies the injunction. Should the
Colonel's view finally be upheld,
it will put an end to taxing money
loaners and property owners will
have to bear the entire burden of
taxation.
County Attorney Field presented
this case in an exceptionally strong
manner and has been compliment
ed very highly on the clearness
with which he followed the ques-
tion throughout its different
phases.
Two divorce cases were heard by
Judge Gillett Friday afternoon and
night. The first was that of Rose
E. South VS.. Hiram South. The
parties reside az Deerhead. Mrs.
South alleged cruelty and neglect
of duty but her proof was weak and
Judge Gillett denied the divorce.
He gave Mr.. and Mrs. South
some good wholesome advice and
if they follow it they should have
no trouble in living together but
reports are that Mrs. South has
made up her mind that she will
not do so. Mr.. South has express
sed a desire to bury the past and
begin new. From what we are
able to gather, Mr.. South has
shown the better spirit. Seward l.
Field represented the plaintiff and
Noble & Tincher the defendant.
The second and more difficult
case to adjust came from K1owa.
Morgan A. Lambert brought suit
for divorce from his wife, Laura C.
Lambert. The husband is 80 years
old and the wife So. They have
four grown children and all testi.
hed In court. 1t was case of dis.
agreement throughout their entire
married life. They could not get
along at all, quarreled all the time
and only endured their unhappiness
for the sake of their children. Now,
however, since both of their daugh-
tiers are married and their sons are
able to take care of themselves,
they have concluded to dissolve
partnership. The sons and daugh-
tiers declined to take sides and did
not lean to either the father or the
mother in the testimony which
was very honorable in them. The
knotty question arose over the di-
vision of the property. They have
good farm and little personal
property, as a result of their Joint
effort, aggregating about S., 500.
Mrs. Lambert claimed everything
excepting $4oo. In the hard times
OF the COS they lost everything
they had, but soon after ward Mrs.
Lambert inherited $3.50. This
was invested by Mr.. Lambert and
he traded land a number Of times
until by careful deals and good
farming he finally accumulated the
amount above stated. Mrs. Lam.
bert now claims that because the
original investment was her money
she should have everything and she
would like to turn Mr.. Lambert
out practically penniless.
Judge Gillett stated that while
the statute was unquestionably in
favor OF the woman in such cases,
1t was nevertheless unjust, but he
took the case under advisement un-
til Saturday morning when he
granted the divorce to Mrs. Lam
bert on her cross petition and
awarded her the farm but required
her to pay Mr.. Lambert $1,000 for
his equity or lien. Mr.. Lambert
was also given the present cash on
hand which is about $500, and five
or six head of cattle. Mrs. Lam.
bert was given FIVE horses, the farm
machinery, household goods and
the same number of cattle as Mr.
Lambert.
Seward l. Field represented Mr.
Lambert, and Noble G. Tincher
represented Mrs. Lambert.
Judgment quieting title was rem.
dered in the case of o. F. Rowle,
VS.. The Colonial g U. S. Mtg. Co
The case against r. F. Kathren