The Oskaloosa herald., 1914-02-05
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Disposition Of Various Matters by
Judge and Jury.

Petitions in the following new cas-
es have recently been filed with the
clerk of courts and the causes have
been placed on the docket for the
February term of court, which con-
venes next Tuesday.
Law.
r. +. Shahan VS.. William Lucas, Sr.
and Jane Lucas. Action to recover
judgment for $3.50, interest and
costs, for medicine and medical SER
vices alleged to have been rendered
by plaintiff, as physician and surgeon,
to family of defendants in 1910 at Ed.
dyville. c. f. Hatchitt is attorney
for plaintiff.
J. b. Fancher VS.. J. c. Martin and
Ina Martin. Judgment asked for $685.
SO claimed to be due on one promis-
DRY note executed May 8, 1909. l.. T.
Shangle, attorney for plaintiff.
Roof Bros. VS.. o. b. Carnes and
wife. Suit on one promisory note al
legged to have executed Sept. T. 1912.
Judgment is asked for $75. Plaintiffs
attorney is X. Yer Ploeg.
Bernard l.. Brady VS.. Oskaloosa
Saddlery Co. Judgment asked in sum
of 1855 claimed to be due as commits
sion and for services in negotiation of
trade of certain properties of defend
ant. Burrell & Dewitt represent the
defendant.
Bernard L. Brady VS.. John l.. Jack
Hey. Suit to recover $50 alleged due
plaintiff as commission Tor trade OF
property belonging to defendant. Bur-
rell & Dewitt are plaintiffs attorneys.
Royal Brewing Co. VS.. Reuben Gain
es. Recovery asked in sum of $Zoo.75
claimed to be due plaintiffs on an ac-
count for certain intoxicating liquors
sold to defendant. Mccoy and Mccoy
are attorneys for plaintiff.
G. p. Spratt and Charles A. Spratt
VS.. J. o. Snider and Chas w. Hunt.
Suit to recover damages for alleged
breach OF contract and breach OF war
ranty arising out OF contract made
between defendants and G. p. Spratt,
Sept. 5, 1913, and warranty deed exc.
cuted to Cnas. A. Spratt, Sept. IL,
1913. Judgment asked for $4,000.
Mccoy and Mccoy are counsel for
plaintiffs.
Mrs. Matte Moore VS.. A. T. Wheel
err Suit to recover damages for false
and fraudulent representations alleg-
defendant on Dec. 10, 1913, in regard
to the condition of a team OF horses
which he is claimed to have warrant
ed sound when he sold them to her
for 1925. Reynolds & David are at
torneys for plaintiff.
Economy Hog and Cattle Powder
Co. VS.. A F. Wessman. Action to re-
cover $8S alleged to be due on one
promissory note. Plaintiffs attorney
is Frank 7. Nash.
Lamis and Hoose VS.. Cleary-White
Construction Co. Action to recover
an account for goods claimed to
have been sold and delivered to de-
PENDANTS during November and De-
cember, 1918. Judgment and attach.
ment asked in sum or $512. c. E.
Hatchitt represents the plaintiffs.
f. L. Bay VS.. Cleary-White Con-
struction Co. Judgment asked for
$137 on an account for professional
services alleged to have been render
ed by plaintiff as physician and sur
geon at instance of defendants. {.
f. Hatchitt is attorney for plaintiff.
Equity.
Jennie Simmons VS.. Columbus
Simmons. Suit for divorce in which
the plaintiff also asks custody of two
minor children, temporary alimony
in sum of $50 and $25 during pen
dency of action, and permanent ali
mony in sum of $25 per month. Plain
tiff says she was married to defend
ant in Mahaska county on July IL,
1906, and they lived together I'M
til Dec. 4, 1913. Divorce asked for on
grounds of cruel and inhuman treat
ment and habitual drunkenness. Bur
rell & Dewitt represent the plaintiff.
Perry Buffers VS.. Ethel Buffers.
Action for divorce. Petition AYERS
that parties were married in Des
Moines, Feb. 16, 1912, and lived to-
gether one day. Alleged grounds for
divorce are cruel and inhuman treat
ment and adultery. David S. David
is counsel for plaintiff.
Mary Jones VS.. Oscar Jones. Suit
for a divorce on grounds OF habitual
drunkenness, degeneracy and cruel
and inhuman treatment. Plaintiff
says she was married to defendant at
Ottumwa in May, 1910. o. c. G.
Phillips is her attorney.
Carrie Mickens VS.. Ephriam Mick
ems. Action for divorce and asking
that plaintiff be authorized to resume
her maiden name Alleged grounds
are cruel and inhuman treatment.
The parties were married at Buxton,
Sept. 81, 1909, and lived together I'M
til November, 1913. Burrell & Dew
lit represent the plaintiff.
c. E. Mickey VS.. Martha J. Brown
and J. n. Brown. Judgment and fore
closure of mortgage asked in sum OF
$SO3.25 on one promissory note and
mortgage alleged to have been exc
cuted in 1909. Burrell & Dewitt are
counsel for plaintiff.
David S. David VS.. J. E. Simpkins,
Geo E. Dickson, and Northwestern
Live Stock Insurance Co. Suit on
one promissory note and mortgage
claimed in petition to have been exc
cuted in September, 1912. Judgment