The Mena weekly star., 1916-10-12
CHANCERY COURT
 IN BUSY SESSION
Chancellor Shaver Passes Upon a Great Number of Cases-Lauck Lumber Company Gets Verdict
 Against F. F. Hammer.

In the three days this week dur ing which Chancery court has been in session lot of minor matters have been disposed of by Chancellor Shaver, tho there have been few cases tried that required much time. The case that thus far has taken the most attention of the court was that of the Lauck Lumber Company Vs. l.. F. Hammer, which was begun Tuesday afternoon and concluded Wednesday The case involved an accounting between the plaintiff and defendant, Minor Pipkin repre- sented the plaintiff company and Judge J. l. Alley was attorney for the defendant.
 The suit was brought by the Lauck Lumber Company and by A. Il. Scoggin as plaintiffs. for the recovery of Sl,9Sl07, of which amount Si,27i was due on note and mortgage given to the Lauck Lumber Company and held by A. H. Scoggln as collateral The defend ant III his answer and cross com plalnt asked for the recovery. of S2,569.0i as due him for lumber furnished the plaintiff company and in the further sum of S6O5 alleged t0 De due him for sundry items. The Judgment of the court gave the plaintiffs the amount sued for, less an item of Si0637, which the plalntltf admitted owing the de- fendant. The defendants attorney saved his exceptions to the finding ot, the court and prayed an appeal, which was granted.
 Tn number of cases decrees by default were granted. Among these were the following: s. B. Harper Ns. Grace E. Leigh, A. NJ. Harrah vs. Jane Ayres. w. L. Garrett Vs. R. c. smith, William F. Russell vs. Sam uel Reese Nora NJ. Rankin vs. D.. w. Rankin ct al w. H. Starr vs. E. D. Culp ct uX.. C. NJ. Hopkins vs. C. w. Knight, Holder Scott vs. j. w. Fortner and K. F. Martin vs. F. F. Martin et al
 In another class of cases litigation was ended by the filing and approval of commissioners reports of sales and the approval and confirmation of commissioners deeds. Among this class were the following: John F. Furlong vs. David w. GOnnalIy ct al: David L. Lebow vs. NJ. l.. Trim ct al., Herbert Melville Ns. James Cassiday, Board of Im- prOVement of Waterworks District No. , vs. J. w. Baker. G. l.. Loch- ridge VI. w. L. Owens ct al., L. NJ. Nimberly ys Mamie underhill. The Merchants Bank vs The Wander Noort Canning Company, l. F. Gan sett ys. Guardian Trust Company, and E. T. Roach vs. w. 0. Lewallen.
 Still another class Of cases that engaged the attention of the Chan cellor were actions for divorce, and along this line six decrees were as follows
 In the case of Rena Mewhirter ys. Duff C. Mewhirter, the plaintiff was granted decree on the ground of desertion, and she was awarded the custody of the child.
 In the case of A. E. Terry vs. E. D. Terry the decree was for the plain tiff. who was also awarded the cus- tody of the children.
 Edna Baker was granted a divorce from J F. Baker on the ground of desertion. She was awarded the custody of the child
 Frank Hausen was granted a de- cree from Lillian Hausen on the ground of desertion. Mrs Georgia Phillips was likewise granted a di- Vorce on the ground of desertion from D. c. Phillips, and under the decree she was awarded the cus- tody of the children Ella Barnes secured her decree of divorce from F.. l.. Barnes on the ground of cruel treatment. The court awarded her the custody of the children.