Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1921-09-22
Squires at the hospital.
Answer: Yes.

Squires at the hospital.
Answer: Yes.
3. If you answer the first question
Eyes" then was such promise to pay
conditioned that the defendant would
pay out of Squires' wages?
Answer: No.
The witnesses: Frank Luebke, Will
lam Brown, H. Grctophorst, DR.. A.
L. Farnsworth, Charlotte e. Smith.
The jury: John McCabe, John
Accola, Earl Thomas, Louis Bergin,
William II. Gall, Jr. N. A Cushman,
H H. Porter, Ernest Sceales, L. L..
Case, Albert Gade, John Babb, Peter
Gier.
Attorney J. T. Bowler was named
to defend John Rolof. Rolof claimed
he had no funds to fight his case.
(From Mondays dany.]
The case of the State of Wisconsin
VS. John Roloff has been settled and
dismissed.
A judgment of foreclosure was
granted in the case of Asa S. Shuts
VS.. Henry L. Engelking.
There was also a judgment of fore
closure in the case of Charles Dam
beck VS. Zadock Lee. Mr.. Dambeck
was witness.
The case of Grant Francisco VS.. Al.
Hansen was dismissed for want of
prosecution The defendant dismissed
his counter claim.
fTNro~o In;
The case of Charles v. Short and
others as the Western Silo company
of Des Moines against A. Williams of
Baraboo occupied the attention of the
court for some time and the jury
found for the fefendant.
At the time Of the transaction Mr..
Johnson resided north c. Friendship
and at the the present time owns
farm there. He is now resident of
Baraboo. Two notes were given, one
for silo costing $404 and another
for a silo cutter or filler costing $195.
After the sale of the machine the
silO company turned the note into a
bank at Des MOines as collateral and
when Mr.. Williams wrote for an ex-
tension of time because the machine
had not been delivered promptly the
company replied the note was in the
bank and that it would be best for
him to meet the payment when due.
About the time the note was due
a stranger appeared at the farm and
the money was paid by Mrs. Williams,
Mr.. Williams being away at the time.
She gave the money and took the
note. Previous to this time the bank
had turned the note back to the
Western Silo company, according to
the finding of the jury. However, it
was believed the note had become
lost as the company thought the note
had been sent to sir Williams by
mistake, instead of to the bank at
Friendship for collection There were
several things that greatly influenced
the jury:
l. Mr.. Williams was in possession of
the note.
2. Testimony showed that two
travelling men had agreed to meet at
Wisconsin Rapids and that one of
them would drive the other to the
Williams farm in his car 70 collect the
money.
3. A letter from the Friendship
bank to the company stated that a
representative of the company had
been in the vicinity at the time the
note was paid.
4. The note of $4O4 was promptly
lx1o
lams had the money to meet his obi
cations.
Besides the above Mrs Williams
gave such testimony that could not
well be questioned and there was moth
ing on the part of the company or the
Friendship bank introduced to show
the note had ever been sent to the
bank.
The jury found in favor of Mr..
Williams, believing the note had been
paid.
The witnesses, part by deposition
Mrs. Inez Williams, E. A, Anderson,
w. A. MCGOWAN, Winn MCGOWAN A.
Williams, John A Elliot Charles v.
Short. Rolla X. Franklin and w. w.
Garner.
The Jury: F. A. Caflisch, Herman
Kasiska, F. G. Dubois, Albert Mittle-
stead, w. H. Gall, Jr. John Accola,
Earl Thomas, N. A. Cushman, Ernest
Sceales, L. L. Case, John Babb, John
McCabe
Land Description Corrected
Description in a deed of land at
Fern Dell was corrected for C. II.