The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1918-01-11
Circuit Court.


sion Of the circuit court has been an
nounced. 1t contains 66 cases Of
which only six are criminal. There
are 30 law cases in five Of which
there has been no progress during the
year. There are 20 divorce cases on
the chancery calendar as well as one
suit for the annulment Of marriage
in the seven other chancery cases.
Court will convene on Monday,
January Ia, when Judge J. H. Col
Inns will take the bench for the first
time. He will hear to naturalization
matters on that date. Adjournment
will then be taken for two weeks to
permit the attorneys to give most of
their time to the aiding Of regis
trants in answering questionnaires.
The jury has been called for Monday,
January %, when the work Of the
court will be taken up in earnest.
The criminal cases are as follows:
John Santrucek, larceny; Alva H.
Wilder, assault with the intent to
commit the crime of murder; Charles
COoney, assault; Wilder Main, as
sault; Frank Dalton, larceny; Sidney
Harder, receiving stolen property.
The issues Of fact to be tried are
as follows: Frank j. Sayer, admin
istrator Of the estate of the Charles
H. Sayer, deceased, VS.. The Grand
Trunk railway; R. d. Let's VS.. The
OwOsso Sugar Company, assumpsit; !;
Dalphus Bruno VS.. William Bruno,
appeal; Rhoda Pearsall VS.. Walter j.
Colby, trespass; Sarah Powers VS.. j.
Memo Bentley, trespass; Irving w.
Norris VS.. Thomas Clarey and Kath-
eryn Clarey, assumpsit; Thomas j.
Bresnahan VS.. E. H. Delano, assump-
sit; Charles F. Crane VS.. Richard
Smith, trespass; appeal from the
probate court in the case of the es-
tate of Gustave KnOp, deceased; Or
pha j. l.. Chalker VS.. Grand Trunk
railway, trespass; John L. Schleider
VS.. Elton Cherry and John Doe, at
tachment; Frank Weitke VS.. John
Calvet, Charles Cross and Alvin
Parks, trespass; The France Coal
Company VS.. Russell Judson and
Ephraim Judson, trespass; Lyle La
Due VS.. Ann Arbor railroad company
trespass; Max August VS.. Silas
Pierce, trespass; Charles E. Van
Slyke VS.. Western Union Telegraph
Company, appeal; Appeal in the es-
tate of Bert Wilson, deceased; Tuttle
Coal Company VS.. Henry A. Spraker,
assumpsit; Saginaw Medicine Com
pany VS.. Howard c.. Allen, ct at, as
sumpsit; Orphia McClung VS.. Frank
! McClung, trespass; Clem Chalker VS..
Grand Trunk Railroad Company,
trespass; Edwin r. johnson VS.. The
Grand Trunk Railroad Company, tres
pass; William E. Robb VS.. L.~C.
Mountain, assumpsit; Thomas Wilson
VS.. Robert Bartlett, appeal; Appeal
from probate court in the estate of
Walter c. Baird, deceased.
The five cases in which no progress
has been made during the last year
are: Katherine Titcomb VS.. Michi-
gan United Traction Company, tres
pass; Adelbert Spangler VS.. Stanley
; III. Wallace, trespass; Mary Binco VS..
Martin Kuchar, trespass; The Ault-
man Machine Company VS.. p. ID.
Brockway and Herman Brandahl, as
sumpsit; Helen Shavronoc VS.. John
Secan and Helen Secan.
The following divorce cases are on
the calendar for trial: Beryle VS..
Jerome Hirschaman; Sarah VS.. John
Willard, John f. VS.. Hattie Corcoran,
Dorothy VS.. Henry Bull, Ralph VS..
Gladys Miller, Vera VS.. Frank Har-
ris, Jennie VS.. Joseph st. John, Will
liam j. VS.. Florence j. King, Sidney
VS.. Ora Willett, Fred VS.. Katheryn
Hibbard, Albert E. VS.. Sarah Maudlin,
Pearl VS.. Chester Pratt, Minnie M.
VS.. Melvin c. Butler, Florence l.. VS..
Eugene Allen Pitts, Maud VS.. Edward
j. Ellsworth, Grace VS.. William A.
Schultz, Louisa VS.. Albert Brown,
Lucy c. VS.. Albert L. Lindsey, Maud
M. VS.. Ross McEacheron, Mabel VS..
John Perkins, Anna VS.. Benjamin
Fairbanks, Eta VS.. Elgie Loachridge.
Two cases for divorce in which no
progress has been made for a year
are Sarah M. VS.. Obediah w. Eggles-
worth, and Sadie VS.. Abraham Depew.
The other chancery cases are:
Anna Hilborn VS.. Bernie Fuller, to