The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1914-01-15
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Disposition Of Various Matters by
Judge and Jury.
New Cases.

New Cases.
Petitions In the following new cas-
es have been filed with the clerk of
the district, court to date and the
causes win come up for hearing at
the February term of court:
E Law g
White Hall Sewer Pipe and Stone
ware Co, OF Illinois, VS.. The Iowa
Traction Co. Plaintiffs ask judg-
ment for 1858. 3S, interest, and costs,
and foreclosure of mechanics lien
against land belonging to the defen-
dants, and claim for sewer pipe
alleged to have been furnished defen-
dants In 1911 by the plaintiff com
pany. The pipe was to nave been
used, according to the petition, for
culverts in the building of an electric
railroad from Oskaloosa to Waterloo.
H. H. Sheriff is attorney for the plain
tins. ..-
Margaret Donnelly VS.. oskaloosa
Traction and Light Co. The plaintiff
alleges in her petition that the de-
fendants' power house is situated ad-
jacent to her property and that said
defendants three years ago construct
ed a large steam pipe, connected with
the boilers in their power house, and
opening SO that the steam water eX-
Guided therefrom is forced onto her
lot and into her house She claims
thar the water has made her house
damp and unfit for living purposes
and that the furniture, ETC., have been
greatly damaged Judgment is asked
for 81 900, interest and costs. Davis
a Davis are her attorneys.
George Antolik VS.. Crescent Coal
Co. Plaintiff alleges in his petition
that he was employed by the defend
ant company. as mule driver in their
mine and that, on October 6, 1913, he
was Kicked by a vicious mule which
he was driving and that his face and
eyes. were badly injured. The usual
allegations Of negligence and betray'
al OF obligations on the part of the
defendants and no. contributory. neg.
ligance on the part Of plaintiff are
made. Judgment is asked for $1,000
and costs. George H. Woodson and
Mccoy e. Mccoy are attorneys for.
the plaintiff a.s
Drs. Abbott and Wilcox vs.. u. S.
Hepsyel Judgment for $75.75 and
foreclosure of mortgage are asked on
three promissory notes and mort
cages. Ed A. Schmidt is attorney for
plaintiffs. ..-
Nelson, Baker & Co., of Michigan
VS.. DIR. J. w. Krout. Suit to. recover
s65.13 alleged 10 be due for goods and
merchandise furnished. II. H. SheT-
if is attorney for plaintiffs.
j. w. Linderman VS.. Harvey Buck
Ter and Jennie Z. Buckler Jundment
asked on two promissory notes 10 be
alleged to be due in respective sums
of 1888 and $1,510.S0, and that writ OF
attachment issue. Plaintiff is repre-.
scented by Attorney G. E. Hatchitt.
Laura Rsam vs.. Samuel Ream and
A. z. Foster. Plaintiff says in her
petition that she is the wife of de-
PENDANT Samuel Ream, and that she
secured a Judgment against him IN
December, 1913, for $62s.60. She now
asks first lien on certain property
which she alleges is owned by her
husband but Is in the name OF de
fendant, A. f. Foster, and that an ex-
ecution issue and the property be sold
10 satisfy the jurgment Yer Ploeg
& Yer Ploeg are her attorneys.
Claud r. Lotspiech VS.. A. J. Covey
and Mary A Convey. Judgment is ask
ed for SITS alleged to be due as rent
enforcement of lien. E. A. Schmidt is
attorney for plaintiff.
Equity.
James Taylor and Chas. Taylor VS..
Peter Taylor. Suit to have certain
deed, alleged to have been executed
April 6, 1912, by Samuel Taylor, Ge-
ceased, to the defendant, set aside.
Plaintiffs say they are heirs of said
Samuel Taylor. who died in June,
1913. They allege in their petition
that consideration mentioned in the
deed was $4,000 but that no such sum
was ever paid, and that the deed was
procured through fraud and undue in
fiuence.s' They claim further that the
deceased was of unsound mind when
the deed was executed. Reynolds 6,
David and F. T. Nash are their attor-
neys. 49,
James Taylor and Chas. Taylor VS..
Alfred Taylor. Suit TO have deed set
aside. The allegations in this case
are practically the same as in the pre-
ceding cause. Reynolds g. David and
Frank T. Nash are plaintiffs attor-
neys. 49, 5.r
Homer. Johnson VS.. Maggie John.
son. Suit for divorce on the grounds
of desertion and adultery. Plaintieff al
]eges that he was married to defend
ant in Cook County, Illinois on July
], 1903, and that she deserted him
six years ago. o. N. Downs is his at
torney. .... ...
Francis Rospotnik VS.. Felix Ros
potnik Plaintiff asks for a divorce
on the grounds Of cruel and inhuman
treatment and further alleges that
the defendant is AN habilual drum.
ard. She says that they were mar
ried at Abba in 1912, and lived to
gether six or seven weeks. Her attor-
ney Is II. H. Sheriff.
Nancy A. Stephens VS.. Linton II.
Stephens. Suit for divorce on the
grounds Of desertion. The couple
were married at McCook, Neb.. on
March IL, 1893. and lived together,
according 10 the plaintiff, until Janu.
airy IL, 1907. Jno. o. Malcolm Is at
torney for plaintiff,
Alice Il. McGiasson VS. Thomas
Harper aud Elizabeth Harper ct al.
Asks partition of property. Jno. 0.
Malcolm and o. c. G. Phillips are at
r.