Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1915-09-23
CIRCUIT COURT
tFrom saturdays DaiIy.)

acid here. The first instance was that of
Hannah Francisco vs. Grant Francisco.
Nrs. Francisco is a resident of Bara-
boo and Mr.. Francisco is a resident of
Fairfield. They had not long resided to-
gether and evidently could not agree
According to the evidence both were in
a measure to blame and this ia what in
huenced the court in not granting the
decree. When Mr.. Francisco was on
the witness stand an amusing colloQuy
took place. The attorney for Mrs. Fran
cisco asked Mr.. Francisco as to his
property. Some years ago he won law
salt and the court awarded him about
$1,000. During the examination the at
torney asked him what /becams of the
tive thousand and the witness replied
without hesitation that the lawyers got
the most of it. A broad smile went n
round the court room.
The Lawsing Case.
No divorce was granted in the case of
Charles H. Lawsing of Baraboo and
MRS. Alisce Lawsing now in Minnesota.
1t will be remembered that Mrs. Law
sing and Baraboo man purchased tic
kets for the west and were taken from
a train at Elroy. Afterwards she was
allowed to proceed and the man was
placed on parole. The court holds there
is no ground for divorce in this case.
A judgment was granted in the case
Of Jacob Alexander vs. George Alexan-
der.
A petition was granted in the case of
Ahifretta Aspel vs.. Mary Anderson.
(From Mondays Daily.)
The court has decided that the clerk
of the town of Caledonia must pay
back to the subscribers the money that
was raised for the proposed Merrimack
bridge. The bridge was not built and
there was some question as to whether
the money should be returned or not.
The amount is about $500. The friend
ly suit was brought by the Marriott
Shoe Co. vs. the Town of Caledonia.
The money raised for the work at Mer
rimack was practically all spent.
The case of Egerton E. Rerkley VS.
Pullman Motor Car Co., has been con.
tinued.
There was judgment to quiet title
in the case of Emma Kasdorf vs.. Ruth
Smith.
There was judgment of foreclosure
in the case of John A. Malone vs.. Mary
Harmon.
A judgment was granted in the case
of Anton Ankenbrandt VS.. Ella Le-
zeart. The two witnesses were Anton
Ankenbrandt and Robert Ramsey.
The case of Mary Sherhardt vs. John
T. Sherhardt was continued.
fterma h of Foreclosure
The case of Adelbert Fish vs S. A.
Collins is held in allegiance. A mort
gage was foreclosed about twenty-five
years ago but the sale was not record
ed and there was no sheriff. deed. The
plaintiff claims the matter is outlawed.
The witnesses examined were Adelbert
Fish, James Holton, S. A. Collins, Tim
0thy Howley, Frank Stando, Egbert
Courtier, R. T. Johnston and B. J. Ha
ger.
In the case of Joseph Janecek, a lad
les tailor of Madison, VS. Miss Mabel
Johnston the case was dropped as the
plaintiff did not appear. Mr.. Janecek
made tailored suit which was not sat
isfactory according to Miss Johnston's
version.
NIL. (From Tuesdays Daily.)
The jurymen have been discharged
for this term of court. They were call
ed upon to weigh but three cases. 1t
was one of the shortest periods for the
jurors ever recorded here.
A reference was granted in the case
of Kathryn Fadden vs. Catherine
Fadden.
The cases of M. M. Johannsen Candy
Co., VS. F. A. Barnard and Ed Ben
nett VS. Herman Mielke were continu-
ed.
The case of Hannah White VS. Broth
erhood of Loo omotive Firemen was
transferred to the court calendar.
There was an order comforting the
sale in the case of Emma L. Hill VS.
Edwin E. Chaplin.
The case of Stegeman Motor Car Co.
VS. Harry r. Long was continued.
The case of B. D. Sherwood VS..
Frank Lloyd Wright was settled.
A judgment of foreclosure was grant
ed in the case of Louis H. Reed ve.
VIM. Norton.
The case of Albert Federman vs. AL
bert Anderson has been referred to a
referee