Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1924-09-25
Case Attracted Many
From Prairie du
Sac end Sank City
When Trial Was in
Progress
JURY DOES NOT
GIVE ONE CENT
Mrs. Beulah Ripley of
Barabo0 is Granted
Divorce from Charl-
es Ripley Woman
in the Case


Miss Louise Bailey teaches
Sunday school class in Prairie dl
Sac. One day a strange youth
came along and when she asked
where he was stropping lie said at
the Kramers. She advised him to
keen away from then, some oe her
language being found in the first
question below Each Of the
Kramers brough suit for $4,000 buC
the jury did not allow one GEM.
Even some Of the witnesses brought
by the Kramers did not give a very
glowing reputation, according to
what was heard in court. It was
stated that Mrs. Kramer was re-
ceiving letters addressed Miss
and this led to gossip as to wheth.
er or not the couple was married.
They had lived at Sank City, then
moved to Prairie du Sac, operating
a restaurant.
Special Verdict
The case went 10 the jury on a
special verdict as follows:
Question No did the defend
ant, on the 8th day of September,
1923, on the public streets of the
village of Prairie du Sac, say to
Mr.. George S. Hutchinson, of and
concerning the plaintiff; Don't
have, anything to do with the Kram
ers. They have a bad reputation
in this town. | believe they were
run out of Sank City | don't
believe they are married. They
do not run a respectable place. In
fact Mrs. Kramer is a bad woman
Stay away from them If you want
TO get in with the right people and
keep up your reputation?"
Answer, Yes.
2. If you answer the first ques-
ton Yes, then answer this queg-
ton: Did the defendant make the
statements to George S. HutChin-
son in good faith. believing the
statements so made were true, for
the purpose Of informing him OF
the facts relating to the character
of the plaintiffs fitness for a boy to
associate with?
Answer. Yes.
8. IL You answer question No.
yes" and question Number two
mo, then answer this question.
Were such statements made malio-
iously by the defendant for the
purpose of injuring the plaintiff
names and regulations?
Answer, No"
A. If You answer question No
3 YES then at what sum do you
assess the plaintiffs damages?
Marie Kramer, compensatory
damages
Marie Kramer, punitory damages,
Arthur H. Kramer, compensatory
damages,
Arthur H, Kramer, punitory
damages
The witnesses: Louise Bailey,
Arthur H. Kramer, Raymond G.
Block, Joseph Dresser, Chris Stel
Der, Fred Hussel Andrew Accola,
Matt Neis, T. r Back, Joseph ORES
en-, j. B. Ragatz, James Carpenter,
George Gruber, Mrs. Ida Ochsner
Caroline Kieck, l.. II. Wilson, Rev.
William Horn and Marie Kramer.
The jury: Adolph Holtz, Joha II.
Leigel, Joseph Weise, F, J. Holt.
Henry Goetz, Perry Cobleigh, John
Blau, Mary Sullivan, w. II, Miner,
III. X. Dillenbeck, Mrs. Spencer
Smith and c. H. Evenson,
Ripley Divorce Case
A divorce was granted in the
case of Doulah Ripley against
Charles Ripley. They were mar
ried at Crown Point Indiana, No
vember II, 1916, there are no chill
dren, the defendant is a paintsr,
and has failed to support his wife.
Mrs. Ripley alleges in her com
plant that Ripley is living in a
rooming house in Chicago presun.-
ed to be operated by Nell Dixon
and that Mrs Ripley was notified
by Ripley that he was engaged to
said Neil Dixon. Other things are
also said in the complaint
There is no property except some
household furniture. Desertion ana
non-support are the causes for the
action. Mrs Ripley is Baraboo.
No alimony was allowed.
Other Gases
A motion was made in the case
of the Rockford Poster cOmpany