Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1916-03-08

the Wisconsin supreme court IOr I'LL
innate decision. Judge Clementson
in his opinion handed down Friday,
reversed the verdict of the jury decid-
ing in favor of Chris Anderson, the
Mt. Hope farmer, who sued Carmody
brothers for the $40 steer. Immediate
" following the trial, the plaintiffs
attorney moved for a judgment in
their favor which was also denied.
The following is a copy of the motion
and the courts decision and ruling.
Motion.
Now comes the plaintiff, Chris AL
dersOn, by Frank c. Meyer and H. E.
Carthew, his attorneys, and moves
the court for judgment on the verdict
of the jury i'll the above entitled act
ion, as shown by the special verdict
herein, and for the sum of $40, same
being the admitted value of the prop
erty in dispute in said action, to-
gether with the court costs and dis
bursements of the plaintiff in said act
ion.
Judge ClementSOn'S Decision.
This action was begun in Justices
court by the plaintiff to replevin
steer to the value of $40. The case
was tried in that court and a verdict
was rendered for the plaintiff. The
defendants then appealed to the cir
cult court and the case was tried with
a jury at this February term and re-
suited in a special verdict for the
plaintiff. The verdict consisted of
three question and the answers there
to. The questions and answers were
as follows:
2. Was the steer that the sheriff
took possession of under the writ in
this case and placed in the custody
of James CarmOdy, and took re
ceipt therefor from him, the same
steer that the sheriff subsequently on
October 18th, took from James Car
mOdy's possession and gave to him a
receipt therefor-NO.
2. Was the steer that defendants
drove away from the cattle of the
plaintiff upon the sixth day of Octo-
Der last the steer of the plaintiff, AL
dersOn. Answer-YES.
3. Was the steer that the sheriff
on October 18th took from James Car
mOdy and proffered to the plaintiff as
his the same steer that the sheriff
had on October Sth replevined in this
case. AnSwer-NO.
Upon this verdict the plaintiff has
moved for judgment. The defendants
have moved that the court change the
answer of the first question to NO,
and the answers to the second and
irs1 70 ind
for them on the verdict so amended;
and in case these motions are denied
for a new trial.
1t appears that the plaintiff and the
defendant, Dan Carmody, each owned
a red twO-year-Old steer with similar
white markings. The plaintiffs steer
had not been vaccinated; Dan Car
mOdy's had been in two places for
black leg-On the left side of the neck
in front of the left shoulder and just
back Of the same shoulder. The de-
PENDANT Dan missed this steer and in
search made by both of the defendants
they found it; or thought they did, in
an adjoining pasture belonging to the
plaintiff. On October Sth the plaintiff
sued out writ of replevin, and pur-
suant to it W. B. Dyer, deputy sheriff,
took the animal and placed it in the
custody of James CarmOdy whose
farm was nearby, pending the action,
and took his receipt therefor James
CarmOdy placed it in a box stall in
his stable and there it remained un-
til the 10th, when, seeing it was get
ting leg sore with standing, he turned
it into the pasture. The case was
tried in Justices court on October 18th.
Before the trial the plaintiff went to
James CarmOdy's place and viewed the
steer, said it was his, and so testified
at the trial On the morning of the
18th, after the trial, Mr.. Davis, vet
erinarian, was called to James Car
mOdy's to determine whether or not
this steer had been yaccinated BY
touch he determined it had been, but
for confirmation another veterinar-
ian, Mr.. Kennedy, was called and to-
gether they made a conclusive exam
inatiOn by shaving off the hair at the
two places where by touch a vaccina-
ton scar seemed to be, and it then
plainly appeared that at both places
a vaccination needle had been used.
The plaintiff had given an undertake
ing for the return of the steer to him.
Deputy Sheriff He'll on the 18th went
to CarmOdy's, surrendered to him his
receipt for the steer, and gave to him
Heils receipt for the steer and drove
it to AldersOn's home. Anderson ex-
amined it and asserted that that steer
was not his steer. He'll then drove it
back to Dan Carmody's pasture. New
ertheless, the case went on; and on
the trial in the circuit court on the
23rd of last month the plaintiff claimed
that the steer driven from his place