Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1922-11-16
Tong Libel Suit Was a Bluff.
Attorneys for County Engineer Fail Even Place Suit
= for $4,000 on Calendar. They're
Too Busy to Fool With H.

As the Record assured its readers
last summer when the Tong $4,000
libel suit was started, the plaintiff
was simply pulling a gigantic bluff.
The case will never be tried, and
never was intended to be tried.
Court will convene, with jury, on
next Wednesday, the 22d. Clerk Of
Court Wagner has prepared the cal
endar, which has some twenty
civil actions and one criminal. Tho
Tong libsl suit will not appear at all
on the calendar for the reason that
the plaintiff served no notice of trial
Whatsoever. Last Friday Geo. w.
Lynn, one Of the Tong attorneys,
sought an agreement with Chas >. Cow
entry, attorney for the Record, to con-
tinue the case for another year. Mr..
Coventry. objected to such continu-
ance, and so Mr.. Lynn seems to have
decided that it was best not to put
the case on the calendar at all. Mr..
Lynn's explanation was that Mr.. Tong
was busy with an estate matter and
could not perpare for trial. The
Record understands that Mr.. Tong
has gone to Idaho, and will not be,
back until after the term Of court.
In that case, he will not even be avail
able as q witness in the bridge inves-
tigation hearing which is scheduled to
take place here during the coming
term. So ends the famous $4,000
libel suit. The threat Of libel ac-
tion against the Record by F. J.
Pietz also failed to materialize, no ac-
ton even being started. Mr.. Pietz
lhad the sheriff serve notice to re-
itract On the Record editor, and there
he let the matter drop. AS the re-
I suit, this year will see a term OF
court set without the Record being
! defendant in anything.
4 There are some important cases to
be heard. The action of VIM. Frank
] against the local electric light COM
4 pany is on trial. E. "A. schuck is
suing 8. A. Fischer and son for
damage as result Of apersonal 9 en-
counter Anton Grunefelder has .
fire case against Henry Reamann,
growing out Of the same fire which
! was the basis Of another case in court
la year ago which Mr.. Reamann lost.
There are two slander cases from
strasburg, one is M. a. Klein against
Joe Dillman and the other Joe Dillman
against M. A. Klein. The cases on
the calendar, other than the bridge in-
junction hearing, are as follows:
(, State VS.. John Solomonson, con-.
cealing mortgaged property. A..
Frederickson, VS.. T. B. Meinhover;
Menno DeBoer VS.. John Biddlecomb;
(|W. B. Otto VS.. L. Horstmeyer,
.IW. B. Otto vs.. w. s. Chandler, and
I. w. b. Otto vs.. s. NJ. Nogle; E.
schuck vs.. s "a. Fischer; j. ]. Kre-
liner vs. Jacob Merkel; Karoline Oster
Tvs. Peter Oster; B.. Wald VS.. Frank
ItM. Baumgartner; Anton Grunefelder
Tvs. Henry Reamann; Crane Drdway
Tvs. y. a. Peterson and Walter Boh-
lin; W.. n. Frank vs.. Emmons Coun-
ty Light h Power Co.; Joe Goodin VS..
Ella o. Casselman; NJ. "A. Klein " !.
Hoe Dillman; Joe Weizbeck vs. Steve
lNolk; Security State Bank vs.. Peter
he; Van soest; ebastian Mastel, guar
[Bdian, ys. u, II. p. Ry. Joe Dillman vs.:
lM lA Klein; Farmers State Bank q
Il tHaselton vi, sGs E. Whitfom The
q lhearines on the bridge injunction will
probably follow.the above cases.
=. =