The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1917-01-27
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
Trial of the Zadow VS.. Zadow
Case Brought To a Conclusion
On Tuesday

'Zadow. plaintiff, vs.. W. F. Zadow,
defendant. commenced in District
Court on Tuesday of last week, was
concluded on Monday afternoon of
this. when the Court instructed the
jury to return a verdict of $500 in
favor of defendant.
Several days of last week were taken
up by argument of counsel upon the
numerous points of law evolved in
the case. The question under dis
cussion at the time the SENTINEL
went to press on Saturday, was wheth-
er or not defendant should be allowed
to prove certain counterclaims
amounting to some $3.50. 90 for goods
and money he claimed to have fur
nished and paid for plaintiff during
the year of 1912. The Court ruled
that these matters had been settled
by the divorce decree between these
parties in November of that year, a
later date.
Defendant then offered to prove
that plaintiff was in possession and
occupancy of the hotel and property
in question from the time of the di-
vorce decree until the commence
ment of this suit. by virtue of a GER
tain written agreement, and had
failed to pay the rent and to furnish
him board as agreed. This offer was
allowed by the Court. after which a
recess was taken until 10 o'clock
Monday.
On Monday morning the defendant
asked leave of the Court to amend
his answer to show that the plaintiff
had continued in the possession of
the hotel since the commencement of
the suit, under the same agreement
and had not paid the rent or fur
nished the board. Counsel objected
on the ground that he was taken by
surprise and that counsel for defend
ant should have notified him of their
intentions sooner. After some heat
ed argument of counsel on both sides
the Court sustained the objections.
Defendants request to withdraw,
without prejudice, a certain judg-
ment which he had recovered in the
Justices Court and had set up as a
defense. was granted by the Court.
Testimony was given by defendant
as to plaintiffs refusal to furnish
board according to agreement, but
this was withdrawn from the jury by
the Court on the ground that the de-
PENDANT had not made sufficient de-
mand for same.
The plaintiff then offered to prove
that she was released from the pay
ment of the SIS as provided in the
contract for the reason that the hotel
business during this time was con-
Quoted at a loss. The objections of
defendant to this testimony were
sustained by the Court. and there
being no denial of the failure to pay
for the five months mentioned, the
Court instructed the jury to return
the above verdict.
This matter has been in court here
for about four years and was per-
haps the most complicated on the
calendar during that time. Several
attorneys have been connected with
the Ease at different times. The trial
was conducted by B. F. Curler and
w. R. Reynolds, as counsel for plant
if. and N. P. Morgan and Edgar
Father for defendant.
The suit was originally brought
for sale and partition of the Zadow
Hotel property. The defendant made
no objection to this. but set up in his
answer several claims against the
plaintiff for which he asked judg-
ment. and that the same might be
satisfied out of the proceeds of the
sale of plaintiffs half interest in the
property.
The Court will order the property
sold for the purpose of division be-
tween the parties. and will appoint a
referee to take charge and carry out
this order.