Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-10-03

took Emily and her six children along
with him to the old world, leaving
Augusta behind. She Thereafter ouli'
a house in Utah. Action was prousht
in one of the Utah courts against Mr'
Grant, and process served by leaVlns
1t at the house occupied by his first
wife. Judgment was rendered by ae-
fault, and after Grants return ne
brought suit in equity to have 1t SET
aside on the theory that no process
had ever been legally served on him.
On the part of the plaintiff in the Tor
mer action, it was claimed that Angus
ia, being his first wife, was the only
legal wife, and a presumption arose
that her home was the usual place OF
abode of her husband, justifying sec
vice by leaving a copy with some SUIT
able person not less than IA years OF
age. The Utah supreme court. passing
on this question in Grant vs. LAY"
renee, los Pacific Reporter, 93l, oe-
cided that the evidence showed that'
irrespective of any question of legal
ity of marriage Grants usual place OF
abode was not with his first wife. ana
process left at her home did not con-
stitute a legal service upon him.
FAKE PRIZE FIGHTS.
A fake fight between Casey and Nc
Cormick was arranged TO take place al
Denver. Plaintiff. defendant. and others
entered into what plaintiff thought was
a conspiracy to sWindle two wealthy
Pittsburg men who pretended to nave
bet heavily on Mccormick. Plaint'I
bet $4,000 on Casey, because he was
told that the fight was fixed for CASEY
to win. The fight took place in a vacant
house. In the first two rounds casey
appeared to have the best of II; IN the
third round he designedly stepped IN
a hole which ht. been covered up by
carpet and was counted out ThAre-
upon plaintiff demanded the return OF
his money He was told that IL couli
not be returned. but that If he Would
put up sl0.0e0 more the fight would pc
mad over again He put $1,000 me
second fight never took place. plalhtil
being told that some one had skippe
the country with the money. Suit was
then brought against defendant 10 re-
cover the money los', The court OF
appeals of California. in Schmit vs.
Gibson, 107 Pacific Reporter otl' held
that plaintiff could not recover, since
he was q party ~ 4 contract TO SWiHd!e
others: and that the fact that he him
sell w dS lilS ' AZ lin ~ LILY 49,
that he did no. engage in a gambling
transaction. did not lose his money on
a wager. and did not engage in con-
spiracy 10 defraud others. but only
though, he was doing SO, did not give
him right to recover.
SPOOkS AND BURIED MONEY.
The court of criminal appeals OF
Texas is not disposed 10 pass on Ques-
tions Involving the dominion OF the
spiritual world when not necessary 10
decision of q case before II. as appears
from the opinion in Nurse vs.. state
US Southwestern Reporter. sos. APP
pellant had been convicted in the lower
court OF swinding by false represen-
tations. Alexander, the prosecuting
witness. testified that one OF the doors
of his house kept making peculiar
noises day and night, and both he ana
his wife began TO see strange llghts
moving around near their house. The
suspicion arose in their minds that
must have been buried on their
premises The matter was discussed
with appellant Nurse. who offered, IN
of the payment Of $50, TO
find the hidden treasure. His offer
was accepted. with the understanding
that the treasure was to appear before
ne received his money. So one even
ing he came over, and, after digging
awhile, unearthed the sum OF $42, or at
least the evidence OF the prosecuting
witness was To that effect. He SAID ne
heard the rattle of the coin and saw
some of il. but was not allowed TO
have any OF il in his hands. as II was
said 10 be necessary that IL be returned
in order TO prevent the spirits from be-
,,,,,r baf. mr.
removing the balance of the treasure
which had not Yet been unearthed
was so well satisfied, how
ever. with his bargain that he paid
Nurse his fee: but somehow or other
Mr. Nurse did not bring around any
buried treasure, and. when an investi-
CATION was made for that which had
been once discovered and reburied. iron
washers were found instead. Alexan-
der then charged that Nurse had fixed
up the scheme with the intention of re-
burying the money and coming back
and stealing it. He seemed perfectly
satisfied of the original discovery, and
to the subsequent removal
The court of criminal appeals decides
that there is no necessity of raising any
question as TO Nurses ability Ito call
up spirits from the vastie deepe, but
that in the present state of the record
the evidence shows that Alexander
go. about what he bargained for. and.
whether the money was stolen by
\ urse or not he could not be held for
swindlng on the ground of fraudulent
Is agreeing TO do and accepting COM
for doing something which
the one who was supposedly defrauded
testified that he really did do.