The Oskaloosa herald., 1910-11-17
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Disposition Of Various Matters BY
Judge and Jury.

The case of Thomas N. Davis VS.
: Lewis Land Co., was dismissed ant
the costs paid.
In the case of Heramn Krause VS.
> Nora Krause, divorce was granted
The case of Martha J., Smith VS.
Lewis Land Co., was dismissed anC
the costs paid.
The punishment case of Davis
Orvis VS.. Perry Edris, garnishee in
same VS.. Lorrin A. Dickey and Oscar
A. Dickey was dismissed by the
plaintiff and the garnishee discharg
ed.
BY an order of court Elizabeth Bar
rett and Sam Barrett have been dis
charged. They were held pending an
investigation of the murder of Chas
Barrett, but the grand jury found
no bill against them.
Joe Burns, Harry Davis and Lloyd
Colson each demand separate trial in
their cases. Burns is charged with
larceny and the other two are charg.
ed with both larceny and Jail break.
ing. .y
Andrew Fehd VS.. City of oska,
loosa, damage suit. Leave given
plaintiff to amend petition.
Theo. ]. G. Brown VS.. City of Os.
kaloosa, damage suit Leave was
given the plaintiff in the damage suit
of M. c. Moul VS.. H. c. Winkleman
to amend the petition.
| ITnpU Of l., ~. -
case of Flora B. Walker VS.. o. Albert.
son ct al, the plaintiffs petition was
submitted.
In the divorce suit of Hal Reiter
VS.. Elnora Reiter, the decree was
modified so that the plaintiff can re-
marry after the expiration of ninety
days.
In the matter of the assignment of
James A. Brown, an order was made
by the court transferring the case to
the United States district court.
The following cases were taken up
in Saturdays session of court:
The Van Houten will ease is still
in progress. The jury is listening to
the evidence as it is read from the
transcript of the case as it was tried
in the supreme court.
The divorce case of Ray Farley VS..
Carrie Farley. Order of dismissal
set aside and the cause reinstated.
| A Judgment is rendered against the
garnishee, Willis Pettitt, in the gar
nishment case of Mahaska County
vs.. D. R. Petit ct al in the sum of
1884 and costs.
State of Iowa VS.. John Richardson.
Defendant through his attorney is
ordered to give bond in the sum of
$4,000 to keep the peace.
VIM. Bean, who was indicted for
trespassing, was taken before the
court. He pleaded not guilty to the
charge.
Estate of Mary E. Beaver. Final
report approved and administrator
discharged.
Guardianship of Breta Perno. Final
report approved. Geo. H. Woodson
appointed guardian. Bond 100000.
The final report was approved and
ianship of the minor heirs of David
NJ. Longaker and in the estate of
Joshua Stevens.
The guardian of Geo. r. Plat was
allowed money for support of ward.
Guardianship of Bessie Price Final
report approved and guardian dis
charged.
Estate of Frank Loos. Final re-
port set for hearing Nov. rs, 1910.
Guardianship of Claude Blanchard.
Claim of Mccall estate allowed in
sum of $3.50.
Estate of |. M. Clark. Order to
Iexpend $50 for monument for de-
ceased made.
The trial of the Henry Van Houten
will contest case still continues and
| it is probable that the case will not
be completed before the end of the
| present week The case is one of
unusual interest and a lage number
of spectators are in the court room
during the trial. The case was tried
| in the district court of Mahaska
county during the December term,
! 1908, was appealed to the supreme
Ecourt, reversed and ordered back for
re-trial.
\ Henry Van Houten died on or
\ about Oct. 81, 1908, leaving an estate
! valued from $4,000 to $4,000. The
deceased, was about 80 years of age
/ and the contestants contend that the
old gentleman was Incompetent to
make will and that he was ineapa.
eitated by old age. The first trial OF
i the case was from Jan. Is, 1909, to
\ Jan 26th. The jury consisting of ].
I e. Bishop, ID. d. Davis, s. j. Dutton,
r. G.. Eckerman, LIMA Ellis, Ad
h Evans, VIM Ravens, Joe Lister, A.
H. Rogers, A. B. Scarborough, VIM
Sceuerman and Chas. Tohren, re
fturned the following verdict after be
ing out about twelve hours: I'VE
the jury, find for the contestants
William Van Houten and others, j
| e. Bishop, foreman" A new trial
vas asked by the attorney for the
opp ,nents, but denied by the court
The ase was then appealed, taken tC
the sua-eme court and the decision
of the lSwer court reversed. The
supreme curt ordered the case re