The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1910-03-10
Dokigs In The District Court

Thursday fq1epsoa in district court
} one Of the cdDes cleared from the
court calendar was that Of Gordon
Bios. against Frank l.. Lyman. Le-
sur Il, G. Bradford were attorneys
IF the plniptiff and Judge Palda re-
presente be defendant. This case
Was an 0lly)bn in repleyin. the proper
u in question consisting of q horse,
two buggies, a robe and blankets.
It developed that the defendant was.
not In. possession of the property at
the commencement Of the action, and
the case was dismissed on motion OF
plaintiffs attorney, after the jury had
been drawn aa
A Surrey case occupied the courts
attention part of Thursday fore
noon. The case was not without an
amusing feature. lns action was
brought by z. P. Horgensheimer vs..
Rudolph Haines, the case being an
appeal from justice court, and
grew out of q misunderstanding over
the payment of rent, involving about
$50. After the jury was drawn the
itigants got together and were with
in a dollar and quarter OF settling
. but neither was inclined to give OF
take an inch. The jurors were will
ing to donate thirty cents and some
one suggested that the court direct
the bailiffs to pass the hat and take
up collection for the balance. At
torney Greenleaf offered to give 621s
cents If LeSueur would donate the
balance for his client. But one OF
LeSueur's characteristics is that OF
determination and assuming mil
lions for defense but not on cent
for tribute" attitude, refused to COM
promise. Greenleaf thereupon came
to the rescue with the >1.25 and upon
stipulation of the parties concerned
the action was dismissed by Judge
Goss without further costs to either
party, the, defendant receiving $85
less $125, the amount which Green
leaf lis attempting in vain to collect
frpm LeSueur. s~$
The case Of Paul Hellinger, as
Artistic Advertisement Company's
agent, against L. M. Costello, was
dismi Used Thursday. for want of pro-
seQnop- 40 attorneys on either side
appearing. .,.-'t'' ;i..:3 .:::tl!, :
I 1nrday. Mali 5. the replevin
{. ybf Ftank Lnha, Jr.. VS.. Nels
him. dopfbied the district courts
alb6n = several hours. Last oc-
toba 414nlp took up three head of
koqeik n6ging to Linha, which
Aad kspassing and feeding up
q. principally mi''et q
= 5sfIAe pla11eiff brought suit for the
n&ful possession of the three horses,
together with damages for attorneys
sss and for time lost in being re-
tqMared to replevin the horses, the
amQynt being shout seventy dollars.
The Defendants contention was that
<ke,the defendant. had q right to the
possession of the horses. until the
damages, done by the horses, had
been. paid. The Jury decided in favor
tefthe defendant. .-re a.. O.. .....
ss*sssfhe only point in dispute was
: Whatber the horses were taken up
while lin the act'of trespassing. Con
siderable testimony was introduced
on both sides, one, the plaintiff, claim
H&tthat the horses were not actually
ttAepass1ng upon the premises OF the
defendant at the time of their cap
tusAa2d 4he defendant claiming that
Sthe Here aetEalls trespassing ct the
-dmespf taking them up.
SF''aaks courts Instructions to the fury
'v3Sh3ro the point and claimed, even
-tnoa1sh the. trespassing stock had
beer upon the land of the defendant,
I" the defendant had no right to take
! them up unless they were actually
4 upon the: land at; the time Of capture,
hut an action could be brought for.
{: me amount of damages done, the !.
same as any la"sui for damages.
Judge Palda represented the plain.
tin and Attorney Ryerson represented
the de feQdant. S.i.t
The lnount of damages to which
the defendant is entitled, on account
OF tue trespasslng OF the horses, will
be determined in another action, IN
less otherwise settled.
The jury in the case of H. o. Lin
Apln VS.. Il. j. Brown of Kenmare,
brought in a verdict, Wednesday, for
the defendant. The amount involved
was about $3.50. The dispute arose
over. a threshing bill aud. a. loan of
500: ,,.,., .,
Murphy G.. Wooledge we're the
plaintiffs lawyers, and Judge Palda
fought for the defendant!
: lie Emerson Manufacturing COM
pany, plaintiff, VS.. j ii. Tate, defend
ant is the title Of a case. which was
thfeshed out in district court We'd
aesday. This case comes from Bow
bells. The plaintiff sued Tate for
1890, .clalmed to be due as a balance
sW note given by Tate to the plain !
tiH for two gang blows, the face OF