Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1924-03-13

CoIu1uS W Tue u0clSlOu Dy Tue jury.
AS shown by the verdict the property
sold was worth about $4,000 and the
bank sold for $500, a sacrifice, the
plaintiff claimed hence he brought
the suit. The special verdict reads
as follows:
1. Did the plaintiff, NJ. Shumow, on
the 9Th day of January 1928, consent
to the sale of the balance of the prop
erty covered by the bill of sale, for
$1,50O0O?
Answer No.
2. If you answer No / NO, then
answer this question: What was the
market value at Sank City on Jan
uary 6, 1923, of the balance of the
property covered by the bill of sale?
Answer. $2,5OO.OO
g. Did the defendant bank on Jan
uary 6, 1923, sell any of Shumow's
property in the yard not covered by
the bill of sale?
Answer, Yes.
4. If you answer question No. 8
YES" then answer this question:
What was the market value at Sank
City ON January 6, 1923 of such artl,
cles so sold?
Answer, $4,000.
Shumow declared the property was
worth as much as $4,000 but the
jury did not place the amount so
high. The bank is to pay $1,000 more
plus $3.50.
There was some telephoning over
the sale and a misunderstanding in
some respects. This is one of the
things the jury had ito settle.
The bank had sold at a previous
ocILC Ju1h Vo1u0u at dpoOt p4,OVV "
partly pay the claim.
Witnesses: Sam Shumow, Sam
Schuster, Sam Snake, M. Shumow,
o. e. Buerki, Dave Blumberg, VIM.
Welk, Frank B. Moss, A. andre.
Jury: Perry Schultz, Melvin Felt,
L. H. Schroeder, Fred Schlinder, Os-
car Shore, Margaret Coyne, Henry
Sorg, Mrs. Helen Potter, Mrs. Mary
Seeley, August Horstman, Mrs. Ida
Neitzel and Mrs Anna Smith.
Insurance Case
Briefs will be filed in the case of
Mrs. Florence P. Stolte of Reedsburg
against the Northwestern Mutual
Life Insurance company Of Mtlwau
kee When her husband, Edward
Stolte, died he left two policies and
there is a question whether Mrs.
Stolte should be paid the money now
or only the interest, the money to
go to her heirs in twenty installments
at her death. Mrs. Stolte elects to
take the money now. There are three
daughters, one of which has grad
uated from the University of Wis
consin and two are now students in
that institution.
Non suit in Rutland Case
On April 30, 1923, John Rutland Of
Plain passed to his sin, George Rub
IanI property valued at about $4,000
which resulted in q suit in circuit
court. Tenry J. Reuschlein, trustee in
bankruptcy, claimed that George Rub,
land had no right to the property be-
cause it was transferred without con-
sent, and for the purpose Of defraud
ing the creditors After several wit
nesses had been examined non
suit resulted.
The witnesses examined were
George Rutland, John Rutland, j. M.
Meier. J. H. Hill, Fl, M, LANCER and
Henry. J, Reuschlein.
John Rutland has been in court
several times on moonshine and other
charges. Recently he appealed to the
governor for a pardon.
Motto. Case In cour.
When a tenant moves from a house
and leaves some property behind has
the owner a right to dispose of what
is left? A case in circuit court has
settled the point
August Kruger resided in a house
owned by Louis A. Donald, near the
pumping station, and when he went
away he left a motor behind When
Mr.. Donald went to the place after