Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1922-03-16
CASES HEARD.
CIRCUIT COURT
CONTINUED from page one.)

kCOuLluu6u lIOlu page OuO.J
Hanson, Clarence Blakensee, Irwin
Bump.
The jury: Henry Luetkins, Ed.
Snyder, George Bearwald, John Clar-
idge. A. J. Dryer, w. E. Black, Ray
Cowles, w. B. Hayes, Edward Jessop,
VIM Mccarthy, Thomas Fargen, John
Schneider.
(FTom Saturdays Daily)
The Sank County Agricultural so
ciety was defendant in an action TAX
en- up in the circuit court Friday.
John E. Carey was the plaintiff. Mr..
Carey sued the fair association for
$3.50 or virtually that amount less
SIS, which was allowed him for ex-
penses by the fair, plus the interest.
Mr.. Carey was to exhibit a trick
horse at the Sank county fair in
Baraboo, and it was charged the con-
tract was cancelled on August %, by
the defendants.
The following witnesses were call
ed; S. A. Pelton, j. e. Carey and
Clarence Farnworth.
The jury was composed of: William
Steckleberg, Peter Bodentine, Frank
Hanley, Joe Egerer, w. J. Graft, H.
= ]. Schults, d. A. Stoner, Charles HUI
Der, John Redman, Irving Bump,
Frank Pape, and ]. c. Sedgewick.
The jury was charged by Judge
Crosby Friday afternoon with a spec.
ial verdict. Two of the questions
we're answered by the court as fol.
lows.
l. Did plaintiff and defendent en-
ter into written contract on 18th day
of May 1921, whereby the defendant
agreed to pay the plaintiff the sum
Of $3.50 for the exhibition OF his lone
star PAGER, DOnamilo at the Sank
County Fair, September IS, IA, Is
and Is? Answer by the court, yes.
2. Did defendant on August %. 1921
write plaintiff cancelliHg said con
tract, thus preaching it? Answer by
the court, yes.
3. What damages were suffer by
plaintiff by reason of breach of con
tract? Answer for jury to determine
The jurymen returned for instruc
tion and at $50 presented a verdict
which was not accepted by the court
becausY OF not being clear. They re
turned again later with the following
verdict in answer to question three
3. What damages were suffered By
plaintiff by reason of breach of con
tract? Answer by jury, $165, plus in
terest at Z per cent which equal.
$17O.77.
Other Cases Up
During the day preliminary ties
timOny was heard in other cases
August Kriigel VS. Utility Hoist &
Manufacturing Co, judgment granted
Emma Hester VS.. ]. T. Ritter ct al
attorneys for Hester in argument Il
strike out all parts of counter
claim. Motion to strike out counter
claim denied. Usual costs are allow
ed.
Edward Gattwinkel, ct al VS.. Ed
mund Gattwinkel, ct al, final confir
nation OF referees report
(From MONDAYS danv1
The jurymen of the circuit cour
were excused from further service
Friday evening and returned to thei
respective homes Friday and Satur
da.;.
A case involving the petition of Johr
II. Diehl, for discharge of a mortgag,
was heard and granted in circui
court.
Albert c Flick VS.. Phillip Grubb
both of the town Of Freedom appear
ed before the court in a dispute owe
the drilling Of a we'll on the Grub
farm. The well had been drilled som,
400 feet prospecting for iron ore
Flick sued for an injunction to hav,
the we'll plugged up. claiming an ar
tesian we'll was struck in the pro
cess and left to flow over his adiac
ent property. The plaintiffs LAND
was made marshy by the flowing we'll
it is claimed.
The following witnesses were call
ed: A. c. Flick. Fred Driefke. William
Grubb, Philip Grubb, George Rev
nolds, John Verthein. John Dickie
Fred Ritzenthaler. Herman Koenecke
Arthur Verthein, Arthur Mey an,
Charles Grubb.
The verdict of the court will b,
submitted on briefs. later.
The State of Wisconsin VS.. Alder
Dahnke was given a hearing. TIL,
, prisoner was arraigned and informa
tiou read by District Attorney H. ]
BONN. The defendant did not plea,
and was returned to the county TAI
to await further hearing. The de
1endant is charged with nonsuppor
of his family
Rrom Wednesdays daily)
Testimony in the action betwee,
". S. Cramer VS.. Marvin ]. Tyler g
concerning property in the Thir,
ard has all been submitted in tn