Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1917-10-24

with the bulk of the docket out of the
way by Saturday. The important mat
tiers coming up for trial were as fol-
lows
Frank Pierce Par0icd
Frank Pierce of Mt. Hope, held in
Jail for some time on a failure to sup
port charge, pleaded guilty last Wed
nesday Pierce was parOled to VIM
Vince of Mt. Hope and ordered to
support his wife and children He
will make monthly reports.
10 Pay For SmaSh-UD
In case of Frank Martinez VS.. Kit
FARMLAND, the jury found for the
plaintiff on Thursday. Martinez, a
Cobb farmer, with his brother August
and his mother, Mary Martinez, went
to Cobb one evening last August to
consult a doctor for the old lady. On
their way home after midnight they
met the FARMLAND auto about a mile
out of Cobb. FARMLAND and four
other men had been at Highland for
the evening. Although the road was
wide and smooth the VITO cars lock-
ed wheels and suffered considerable
damage. One of the Martinez boys
lost a tooth and the old mother was
thrown across the running board. The
Martineks averred that their car was
we'll on the right side in the weeds
The jury found on question one
that the defendants did not exercise
ordinary care in driving their car to
prevent collision with the plaintiff
On question two that the collision was
caused by want of care on the part
OF the defendant
n
was the natural result of the defen-
dan't carelessness and that he should
have fOrSeen a collision
On question four Did the plaintiff
at the time of the collision. and be-
fore, exercise ordinary care in driving
his car to prevent a collision with the
defendant" Answer-Yes.
Question 5-HOW much damage should
the plaintiff recover from the de-
PENDANT for the injury caused by the
collisiOn-Ans. $85.
Won His Commission
Geo. Selleck Of this city was the
victor in his damage suit brought
against Mr.. and Mrs. J. P. Rivers.
former prOprietOrs of the Hotel linda
Selleck alleged that Mrs Rivers had
agreed to pay him a commission of
one per cent in case he negotiated a
sale Of the property This was last
May. Shortly after the hotel was
sold to Oscar Wright for $4,000. Sell
leck's commission at his figures, was
$3.50
1t developed that Selleck was en-
gagged by Mr.. Wright to make cerain
inquiries regarding a sale of the other
hotel. He preached the matter to Mrs
Rivers and was advised that she
would sell providing she got her
price. He reported this to Mr. Wright
and was told that was all he needed
to do Selleck swore that Mrs Rivers
had agreed to pay him a commission
of one per cent and produced a wit
ness to substantiate him When the
sale was made the contract provided
that Mr. Wright was to pay Selleck
any fees. Selleck refused to abide by
this, holding Mrs. Rivers, and brought
suit
The following questions we're pro-
pounded
/. Did the defendants employ the
plaintiff to find a purchaser for the
Hotel linda and agree to pay him one
per cent of the price gotten for the
property for his services Yes.
2. Was Mr.. Selleck the procuring
course Of the sale Of the linda Hotel to
Oscar Wright---Ans.-Yes
3. Was the bargain of sale be-
between the defendants and Wright
that he should give to them $4,000
net for said property and that he
should pay anything that might be
due to Mr. Selleck for what he had
done about the sale Of the property
Ans.-Yes.
Find For Plaintiff
The jury in the case Of Luther
Wooden, Platteville cheesemalEer. VS..
The Banner Cheese Company of
PIatteville, found for the plaintiff in
the sum Of $191.11 Wooden sued for
breach Of contract alleging that he
had been discharged before his year
was out in 1915 and that the concern
had failed to pay him wages legally
due him 1888 had been paid him
and he earned 1872 during the period
he was without employment but I'M
der contract. This left balance of
1925 he was asking for. The company
officials in rebuttal asserted that Mr..
Wooden's failure to care for the
machinery to their liking and a
desire to run the affairs was good
and sufficient cause for dismissal.
The case was long drawn out but de-
void of interesting details.
One Divorce Case
Mary Lecheska was granted a di-
VOrce from Frank Lecheska