The Oskaloosa herald., 1911-01-26
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Disposition of Various Matters by
Judge and Jury.

Dykstra, J sse Fall, Grin Garrett, G..
d. Grier, w. w. Hughes. w. II. Hloyd,
j. L. Milligan, Smith Mitchell, b. F..
Shoemake, John c. Vroom and Jay
Welton.
LIMA Ellis, through his attorneys,
Burrell Il Dewitt, is bringing suit
against George Berkeley over a team
of mules. 1t is claimed that Berkeley
sold Ellis team of mules and har-
ness for $500, and guaranteed them
to be of the "non-runaway" kind. The
plaintiff further alleges that the
mules ran away the first time they
were hitched Mr.. Ellis brings suit
animals. l. G.. Johnson and S. v.
Reynolds are the attorneys for the
defense.
The jury in the damage suit of w.
J. Billick VS.. Frank B. Shoemake,
was instructed this morning and pass
ed into the jury room about $3.50.
The case has taken several days to
try and has attracted much atten-
ton
The following dispositions were
made yes erday morning:
William Van Houten VS.. Syke Van
Houten ct al. Plaintiff given leave
to amend petition.
Sewers Mfg. Co., VS.. Strouse Mfg.
Co. Continued by agreement.
DAVID Gasaway VS.. Nancy J. For.
ney; continued.
Elvina Clark VS.. City of Oskaloosa.
Continued by agreement.
Estate of John j. Price. |. G. John.
son enters his appearance for G. G..
Sheppard, new administrator.
Estate of Henry Van Houten. Pro
ponent's motion for new trial over
ruled.
New Gases Filed.
Jane Caldwell VS.. Alexander Cald-
well. The plaintiff states that they
were married in Motherwell, Scot
land, June, 1905, and have lived to-
gether for about five years. She
asks for a complete divorce on the
ground of cruel and inhuman treat
ment.
Andrew Hubbard VS.. Carrie Hub
bard. The plaintiff alleges that they
were married at Monmouth, ILL.,,
Sept. 90, 1900, and lived together un,
til about Jan. l, 1910. He asks for a
divorce on the ground of desertion.
hn fnllnNyinp c.
signment of cases for next week:
The trial Of the State oft'Iowa VS..
Josephine Wilson, which was started
Saturday afternoon, was resumed
Monday. The defendant was charg-
ed with contempt of court. AtSor-
neys Dan Davis and John N. Mccoy
appeared for the defendant and Coun-
ty Attorney ]. G. Patterson appeared
for the State. After hearing the evil
dence of several witnesses and lis
tening to the law as read by the at
torneys, the court found the defend
ant guilty as charged. A fine of $500
was imposed, which if not paid will
force the defendant to remain in Jail
for 240 DAYS. The fine has not been
paid at present and the defendant is
still confined to the county jail.
The jury in the automobile case of
Billick VS.. Shoemake, returned the
following verdict Saturday evening
at 1910, after being out almost IL
hours: I'VE, the jury find for de-
PENDANT, Ethel Shoemake. - Isaac
Evans, foreman" 1t is said that
eight of the jurymen stood for find
ing a small judgment against the
plaintiff, which might act as warn
ing to those who drive faster than is
necessary.
The jury in the mules suit; Ellis v.
Berkeley, reported Monday afternoon
and the trial OF the case resumed. 1t
is probable thai several days will be
consumed the trial of this suit.
New Cases Filed.
N. l.. Gladstone has filed a suit
against John Cruickshank, Jr., ask
ing for a judgment in the sum OF
interests, costs and attor-
neys' fees on an alleged due and I'M
paid promissory note.
Interstate Lumber Co. has filed a
suit against ID. N. Fox, asking a judg-
ment in the sum OF $20.03, which
they claim is the balance due on a
bill of lumber sold to the defendant.
The following jurors were empan-
elled this morning about 1890 in the
suit of John Thomas VS.. Bolton &
Mccoy: J. e. Besco, A. w. McCaf-
frey, J. G. Stout, s. A. Hendryx. F.
NJ. Helm, II. Ludwig, A. w. Phillips,
A. G. Clark, Joe A. Hanna, N. w.
Smith, S. e.. Barnhart and Howard
Beaver. This suit is over the collec-
ton of a debt. 1t is alleged by the
plaintiff that collection was made
by The defendants and they have fail
ed to turn over the money collected
The defendants claim that the firm
was dissolved the day before the
collection was made by defendant
Bolton. The question in controversy
seems 20 be over the amount OF at
torneys' fees the defendants are en-
titled to.
Following the empanelling of the
jury this morning Judge Preston dis
missed the remaining Jurors for the
tarra ua thanEal than, for thair n 4.