The Oskaloosa herald., 1918-01-31
HIGH COURT HITS
|. PETTY LIT|GANTs
SCORES PEOPLE WHO GO TO LAW
OVER TRIPLES. uao3za
RED HOT OPINION IN COW CASE
Judge Weaver Declares II Is Beyond
Bounds of Charity to Excuse
Grown American Farmers Who
Do Not Use Sense.


Des Moines, Jan. 26.-Going to law
over some trifiing matter and dragging
petty differences through the courts
at a great cost to the litigans is given
severe scoring by Judge Silas M.
Weaver, of the Iowa supreme court,
in an opinion written by him in a
law suit over the ownership of a red
heifer. The case is entitled Clarence
4. Luther VS.. John Ullrich, appellant,
and is appealed from Buena Vista
county. Luther won in the lower
court and was sustained by the su-
preme court.
1t seems that Luther bought ten
head Of cattle at public sale held
by one of his neighbors which had
been put up at the sale by Ullirtch.
When Luther tried to drive the ten
head of cattle home the next day he
had to go by Ullritch's place. AS he
did so the cattle turned in at their
old home and were soon mingling
with the other cattle on the Ullritch
farm. When Luther undertook to
sort out and regain possession of his
stock dispute arose between the
men as to the identity of some of
them. The chief difference was over
a certain red heifer which Ullritch
insisted was one of the number he
sold the plaintiff but which the plain.
tiff denied ever having seen before.
The two men could reach no agree
ment and Luther went home He re-
turned the following day to try and
pick out his cattle. No agreement
was reached. Luther then started an
action for replevin and the writ was
served by the taking of the ten head
claimed by Luther. A judgment was
later rendered in favor of Luther and
Uuuditch appealed to the supreme
court. F.a
Scores Petty Litigation.
In scoring litigation overs such
matters Judge Evans. among other
things, in his opinion says:
''The controversy is one of fact and
the facts are mostly of a petty and
trifiing character. Whatever may
be thought of the. comparative merits
of the claim put forth by the parties
they have been settled by the jury in
the plaintiffs favor and there the
matter should end.
1--WE can understand perhaps the
attitude of a mother who refuses to
be satisfied with any substitute for
her child. Her child may be less
beautiful and less perfect than the
one offered in it's stead but it is her
child and not the child of another
which she wants, and if it be denied
she will not be comfOrted; and all
human hearts sympathize with her.
There is also something in our
common human nature which contem-
plates with a humoring smile the in
fatuatiofi of the very young man who
is convinced beyond argument that
the particular dimple which plays up
on the cheek of his particular fair one
is without equal or rival in a world
of beauty.
But it is beyond the bounds of
charity to find reason or excuse for
two grown American farmers who call
down the vengeance of the law upon
each other and spend their time,
money and efforts for months and
perhaps years over the difference of
two bovine quadruples exactly alike
in size. quality, age, color and gen.
eral appearance and are WITHOUT any
distinguishing mark except a small
red spot on the left side of the left
cheek
Possibly the determination of each
party to shift upon the other the
ownership of the red heifer with
history of misfortune-the one which
was awful poor but good one tho
shows little more substantial ground
Of dispute, but even here the margin
of value between the animals could
not have exceeded a very few dollars
not more perhaps than would be
sufficient to supply the cigars the
lawyers on either side would con-
sumo during the trial. Such things
are not conducive to the cause of
good citizenship and should be dis
couraged."