The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1915-01-21
COURT MEETS MONDAY

COURT MEETS MONDAY
With Judge Evans Presiding. An
Unusual Large Number Of New
Cases Have Been Filed.
i The January term of the district
court convenes at Leon next Monday
with Judge H. K. Evans presiding
and it promises to be a pretty busy
term, trial notices having been filed
in q large number of civil cases, and
preparations are being made to COM
mence the trial of State VS.. Earl
Riley during the second week of the
term. BY order of Judge Maxwell
the regular trial jury summoned for
this term was increased from twen-
ty-four to thirty-six, and II the Riley
case goes to trial it will probably be
necessary to summon large number
of special jurors.
An unusual number of new cases
have been filed, the following cases
having been filed last Wednesday
and Thursday, the latter day being
the last day of filing for the January
term:
j o. E. Hull VS.. F. A. Greenland.
Suit is brought on promissory note
for $146. V. R. McGinnis, attorney
for plaintiff
Citizens State Savings Bank vs. F.
A. Greenland, D. E. Shook and w.
A. Ramsey. Suit is brought on a
promissory note for $3,O71.64, dated
July 1, 1914. V. R. McGinnis and G.
w. Hoffman, attorneys for plaintiff.
w. G.. Durbin vs. o. P. Jamison.
Suit is on promissory note for 5000,
dated Dec. 27, 1911. R. B. Hawkins,
attorney for plaintiff.
Price & Teeple Piano Co. vs.. C. L..
Axes and wife. Suit is brought on a
contract given in payment for a play
er piano on which there is due bal
ancc of $500. Marion Woodard, at
torney for plaintiff.
The Farmers State Bank, of Page,
N. D., VS.. VIM. NJ. Cochran. Suit is
brought on two promissory notes,
dated Jan. 1, 1918, on which there is
due the sum of $276.75. Marion
Woodard, attorney for plaintiff.
:, Moline Plow Co. VS.. H. A.. Wright.
Suis it brought on an account for
goods sold to defendant on which
! there is due the sum of $186.75.
Marion F. Stookey, attorney for plain
tiff
-Brantingham Imp. Co. VS..
Davis & Walker ct al. Suit is brought
on an account for goods sold to de-
! PENDANTS on which there is due the
sum of $4,000. Marion F. Stookey,
attorney for plaintiff.
| Nancy A. Gunter VS.. City of Leon
The plaintiff has appealed to the dis
! trict court from the assessment of
$3.50 made by the city council against
|lots 8, and4 of Young's subdivision
4 for the special paving tax for improv-
ling the street in front of said lots, al
! ileging that the property is only worth
$500 and is exempt from taxation as
she is soldiers widow and for the
further reason that the property has
been damaged more than the amount
of the paving assessment by reason
of the change in the grade of the
street. Marion F. Stookey, attorney
for plaintiff.
H. A. Ellis VS.. T. L. and John
Hembrey. Plaintiff states in his pc
|tition that about> Nov. FL, 1914, he
purchased 113 hogs from the defend
ants with the understanding they
were to bring only healthy hogs,
When they delivered the hogs they
brought in 1872 head, and they were
diseased, two dying on the road
while being shipped to Ottumwa and
81 being condemned by government
officers at OttumWa as diseased hogs
and unfit for human food. He asks
Ifor damages in the sum of 5000. C..
w. Hoffman and Ed H. Sharp, attor-
neys for plaintiff.
VIM. H. Young vs.. Grant Young ct
Ial. Suit is brought to quiet title to
Icertain real estate which plaintiff
purchased more than forty years ago,
there being a cloud on the title. G.
". Hoffman and v. r. McGinnis, at
|torneys for plaintiff.
Ida l.. Farver ct al. VS.. Elizabeth
E. Smith ct al. The parties are the
heirs of Geo. w. Rains deceased, and
plaintiff ask that appraisers and
referees be appointed to appraise and
sell the property belonging to the de-
iceased's estate and the proceeds di-
4 vided among the legal heirs. V. R.
McGinnis, attorney for plaintiff.
Robert Axes VS.. Mary Axes. Plain
tiff brings action for the annulment
IOl HdA AAo6O SO4SAAOAy POA AOA AAAS>s
between him and the defendant on
August II, 1913, alleging that at the
time of said ceremony the defendant
was incapacitated from entering into
a marriage contract being at that
time in truth the wife of one Charles
Bowen, having married him at Rock
Island, Ill. That since her marriage
to plaintiff she has been guilty of
adultery with various persons. He
asks that said marriage contract be
annulled and if the evidence is not
sufficient to warrant the annulment
that he be granted a divorce. Mar
ion Woodard and G. w. Hoffman, at
torncys for plaintiff.
. Ethel A. Hicks vs.. Franklin M.
. Hicks. The parties were married in
Chicago, Ill, Sept. 4, 1901, and lived
together until in January 1915.
Plaintiff alleges her husband has
threatened to kill her and her chill
i dren and fails to provide for them.