The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1917-09-29

This week our court has made little
progress. We started in with 40 cases
argued and submitted. Most of them
should have been decided months ago.
Every case shOIld be decided within
two weeks after it is submitted.
Here are advanced decisions in two
groundless cases, 1t seems strange
that lawyers should ever bring such
cases before this tourt or any court.
One case shows tat farmers should
beware how they At their lands for
sale and subject the :nse!ves to suit
for enormous commissions. The other
is proceeding against Attorney Do
herty of Minot. He was called onto
the carpet to answer futile charges
made by persons having. no concern in
the matter and the state pays attor-
ney's fees and expenses amounting to
several hundred dollars. Quite certain
it is this prosecution was not for the
love OF God or the love of justice. =
Bready VS.. Moody.
Robinson, J. The plaintiff appeals
from a judgment against him in this
suit to recover $1,6O5, commission on
an alleged listing contract for the sale
of half section of land. The listing
contract was to the effect that plain
tiff might contract for the sale Of the
land at $1,000 net to the owner, five
hundred cash, and the balance on crop
contract, payable, in five years. The
plaintiff wrote defendant offering to
contract with party for the sale OF
the land on different terms, (which
will be, OF course. subject to your ap.
prOval." TO this the answer was: "Do
the best you can and as quick as you
can. and that will suit me-" The
plaintiff obtained from one William
Mcmahon q. crop contract for the pur-
chase of the land on crop payments
in seven years. without any cash pay
ment. He mailed that proposed con.
tract to defendant in California for
the signature of himself and his wife,
with a mortgage on the land for
$1,000, payable to the plaintiff, to be
executed by the defendant and his
wife. He writes defendant: ~ want
you to see that they are in proper
form to your satisfaction" Well, they
were not in proper form to the salts.
faction Of defendant, and he returned
them. He did not care to give plain.
tiff mortgage on his land for 81 600
and half of the crop grown on it
during the season of 1915, worth $6O5
in exchange for a seven year cropping
contract with person not able to
make any cash payment and Of no
assured responsibility. Defendant was
not such fool. 1t is exceedingly
nervy for anyone to appeal such a
case to this court or to any court.
Sept. q, 1917. .4r... 5..H--.' %,
In Re Doherty.
Robinson, J. This is a disbarment
proceeding. The first charge is that
about six years ago in an attachment
suit Doherty did some wrong in chang.
ing preliminary justice court sum.
mons by inserting the name of an ad.
ditional defendant If Doherty made
the change, it was made before the
service Of the summons and before it
became matter of record. It was of
no serious consequence and it did no
injury to any one. 1t was such a
change as the justice should have
made as matter of course The suit
was for coal furnished at the request
Of one party and for the use and bene-
tit OF two parties who were made
defendants. This charge is doubly out
lawed and it amounts to nothing
The second charge is in regard to
the sale Of wheat which was the prop