The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-11-21
STATEMENT Is MADE BY
FARMERS GENERAL SERVICE co.

To The Forum We wish to reply
to certain statement made in The
Golden Valley Chronicle OF Beach. N.
D.. issue of Nov. 10. 1911, under the
The Farmers General Service Co.
Co. Lose to Andrews. Local Attorney
Succeeded in Having Fourteen Cases
Dismissed in Justice Frisble's Court
at Fryburg."
We wish to brand this statement as
a point blank lie in substance, and
we believe the author of said article
was fully aware OF its untruthfulness
when it was made. Following are the
facts. and we challenge the author to
prove to the contrary:
A ring formed at Beach, N. D., note
makers, have been beguiled into be-
lieving that payment Of their notes
can be evaded, due to the sentiment
created by certain slanderous, UNI
true and libelous newspaper articles
published during the months Of Sep
tem'ber and October, 1911. by Dick
inson paper and other papers copying
assistance and advice.
The Farmers General Service co.
placed and kept one of their collec-
tors at Beach, for several days. He
was unable to make settlement with
any of the company's notemakers.
who had joined the ring. Advice
from collectors was to the effect that
several who had joined the ring would
gladly have settled for their notes. but
felt it their duty not to do so until
some Of those belonging to the ring
were met and made to settle through
legal procedure. Such being the sit
uation the company decided to bring
The matter to q close, and had sum
mons in a civil action to recover on
their promissory notes issued and
served on nineteen Of the notemakers
belonging to the ring. Said summons
were served by Sherinf Henry Will Of
Medora, N. D.. and his deputy on Sat-
urday, Nov. 4, 1911. The cases were
to come up for trial wednesday, Nov.
8, at 10 a. m, before Justice OF the
Peace q. Il. Frisbie OF Fryburg. N. d.
Both parties to the action were on
hand at the appointed time. The
were represented by
Atty. e. M. Andrews of Beach. N. D.,
and the company was represented by
Atty. M. L. Mcbride of Dickinson, n.
ID. When the hour came and court
was called Justice F'risble announced
that the sheriff has yet made no re-
turns. Al wait OF one hour was then
taken and stfN the sheriff failed to APP
pear and the returns were not made.
Promptly at II o'clock q. m, Attor-
ney Andrews protested and refused
to 60 to trial--his grounds were that
as returns had not been properly made
by the sheriff; that the court held no
jurisdiction, and the court dismissed
the cases on the grounds Of no service
and no jurisdiction. Costs and sew
eral actions must be met by the sher-
LEI, who either through official negli-
gence or oversight failed to perform
The functions of his office. He had
been paid promptly for his work and
the company holds his receipt.
why Attorney Andrews refused to
20 to trial is question that he can
best answer, as his clients were there
ready for trial, and court could have
aad not objected. We wish the read
ers OF The Forum to know the truth
md the statements made by and
through the local papers Is but fur
.Ier proof that they dare not publish |
he facts. 1t IS but further evidence
nat these papers are but the tools Of
he organized tradespe0pIe OF the state
ma the trusts; and that those arti-
lies are intended to foster the inter-
ssts that they represent, and not the
interests Of the farmer.
Whether the farmer or noternaker
wins or loses In this or any other legal
controversy, we believe he VIII have