Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1910-02-23


of Kansas City and gave three
notes of $1,000 each in payment.
Later one of these notes was sold
to The Fidelity Trust Company
and it demanded payment but the
signers refused on the ground that
the signatures were secured by the
solicitor for Mclaughlin Bros. by
false representations and that the
horse did not measure up to the
guarantee made at the time of pur-
chase. The plaintiff claimed the
right to recover under the "inno-
cent purchased" plea but the de-
PENDANTS assert that the note had
not been properly endorsed when
sold by McLaughlins to the plain
tiff. All of the defendants, except
ing Joseph Stroll, reside in the vi
cinity of Isabel. Mr.. Stroll lives
in this city.
The case went to the jury Thurs
day night and a verdict was return.
ed in favor of the plaintiff on the
theory of the Trust Company's
standing in the attitude of an inno-
cent purchaser.
Noble & Tincher were attorneys
for plaintiff. Seward l. Field was
attorney for the defendants.
A real estate commission case
j. M. Miller VS.. G. Pfaff-from
Kiowa, was tried on Friday. Mr..
Pfaf sold his farm two years or
over ago for $4,000. Mr. Miller
claimed a commission as having
brought about the sale while Mr..
Pfaff claimed he made the sale
himself. The amount of COM
mission sued for was $275.
The jury was as follows
Roy Burns CIV Kidd
T. L. Sale F. G. Colborn
W. H. Robinson John Campbell
A. F. Buckles F. A. Gibson
W. II. Jackson G. Fl. Stewart
John Stone Frank Upham
A verdict was returned for the
defendant on first ballot.
Noble & Tincher represented
the plaintiff and Field g. Griffin
the defendant.
The Withrow-Hargis damage
case from LakeCity was dismissed.
1t was settled some time ago.
In the matter of the estate of
Samuel Stewart, ]. S. Ru nyan and
F. ]. Wadsworth were appointed
commissioners to partition the land
among the heirs, and the petition
of George Stewart, one of the heirs,
was granted.
The Case of E. H. Lund VS.. 7. l,
Davis of Elm Mills township was
tried on Friday afternoon and Sat-
urday morning. The plaintiff sued
the defendant for $183.5o which
he claimed due him because the de.
fendant turned cattle on his crop.
Lund leased some land from Davis
and there was much friction. Da-
Wis claimed that the land was poor.
ly farmed, that he did not get
his share Of the crop, and that the
crop was not taken off of the land
at the time agreed upon, and the
long and the short of the entire
controversy was that each claims
that the other was on the beat.
1t did not take long for the Jury
to decide the case after it reached
their hands. They found for Mr..
Lund in the sum of $4,000, and
Davis settled on that basis and he
also had to pay the costs amount
ing to 500 80, besides his attor.
neys' fees. This is one of the cases
that might have been settled to
better advantage by arbitration.
Mr.. Davis, however, when he paid
the bill expressed a regret that the
verdict was not for a larger amount
so that he might appeal to the
supreme court. In cases where the
amount in controversy is less than
$Ioo, no appeal to the supreme
court can be taken.
The jury was composed of the
following persons:
c. W. Kidd W. s. Benefel