Barbour County index., 1910-04-13
County Wins Tax Case

and great many court cases were
disposed of.
One of the first cases to be dis
posed of was the MacGregor tax
Injunction case which Judge Gillett
took under advisement after it
was presented at the February
term. He decided the case in fav-
or the defendant-the county
which makes Col. MacGregor
liable for the taxes.
The facts in the case have been
published and re-published and
therefore are so we'll understood
that it is only necessary to say
that it seems very clear that con-
tract taken in exchange for farm
in a sale and serving all the ends
OF promissory note, is taxable.
In this case every lawyer and every
tribunal that has passed on this
question, excepting the lawyers in
Col. MacGregor's employment,
have held the contract taxable
and the question seems very nearly
as definitely settled as though the
supreme court had passed on it.
Col. MacGregor, a few weeks ago
stated that if defeated in the
district court, he would appeal to
the supreme court. We have not
been advised as to whether or
not he still adheres to that decis-
ion.
Just before court adjourned, the
attorneys for Col. MacGregor ask
ed Judge Gillett for written
statement of findings to be used in
case of an appeal, upon which re-
quest the present order was set
aside and a decision will be handed
down in writing at the May term
of court.
Eleanor Woodward was grant
ed a divorce from Hugh T. Wood
ward Thursday afternoon. When
the case was called there was ev.
cry indication of rather sensation.
al airing. Both sides had a mum.
Der of witnesses subpoeraed into
court and some depositions from
afar were in handy reach, but
when the attorneys compared notes
they concluded that it would be
better to reach an agreement and
aftor a conference of about two
hours among lawyers, clients and
mediators an agreement was en-
tered into by the terms of which
Mrs. Woodward was paid $512 by
Mr.. Woodward, she to pay her at
torneys' fees and he to pay his at
torney's fees and costs. Both were
very anxious to dissolve the part.
nership but they were a considera-
BILE distance apart on the financial
settlement. They were married
last November and it did not re-
quire many days for them to dis
cover that they could not agree,
and there was no possibility
ofa reconciliation. Noble & Tinch-
er represented the plaintiff and
Samuel Griffin represented the de.
fendant.
Arahvilla Shelton was granted
a divorce from her husband, w. B.
Shelton, who was sent to the state
reformatory for forgery. The
plaintiffs maiden name of Arahvil-
la Stevens was restored.
In the case of The Fidelity
Trust Company of Kansas City VS..
Mart Roessler, Joseph Stroll and
about ten others, judgment was
rendered against Mr.. Stroll for
$1,413-25. In this case company
of Valley township farmers
bought a pedigreed horse from
Mclaughlin Bros. of Kansas City
for $1,000 and gave three interest
bearing notes of 81, 900 each. The
horse proved to be worthless but
McLaughlins sold the note to the
Fidelity Trust Company who sued
and got judgment on the plea of
innocent purchasers. 1t happens
that Mr.. Stroll is the only man in
the company who has money or
property not execution proof and
the entire burden falls on him.
The judgment above mentioned
represents the first note with inter-
est and costs. The other notes
are not vet due but Mr.. Stroll will
also be held for these when they
| mature. The other men should
and it is hoped will, stand their
share of this burden. 1t would be
an outrage on Mr.Strohl to be com.
PEELED to pay all of this unjust
burden. There is a greater feed
bill against the horse than his
value, hence the entire purchase
price with interest is a total loss.
1t is to be regretted that there is
no adequate remedy in law to
reach the parties who defrauded