Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1925-03-12
was taken for the deficit.
Sank Bank Case

1917 IL Inc spring OI 1872. var
fous amounts were borrowed from
the Sank bank and when the man
ufacturing concern went into bank
ruptcy the amount due the bank
was about $4,000. The notes were
signed by A. G.. Leindorf as pres
ident and A. H. Stelter as secre-
tary- treasurer. In clearing up the
wreck the amount realized for the
creditors was very small per
cent, the bank receiving about
$1,000 on the $4,000. Suit was
brought to recover from the two
officers, the question at issue be-
ing whether or not they are liza
BILE.
Witnesses: William A. Schreib-
err, 4. G. Leindorf, Albert H. Stel-
ter.
The jury: H. c.. Jones, H. Ben
zemann, Mrs. Ellen Darrenougue,
e. Hammermeister, Philip Sorg,
Joe Laughney, Whitney Fullmer,
Buford Markham, William Dwars,
George Schenkat, Frank Clary,
Fred Phillips.
The jury brought in special
verdict which relieved the officers
of the obligation after they had
signed the note. According to the
verdict they signed as matter of
form and not with the idea that
they should pay.
Abridged questions and answers
follow:
1. Did Mr.. Nc Flatland prior to
the signing of the notes state to-
Mr.. Leindorf and Mr.. Stelter that
in order to make this corporation
note it was necessary that they
sign the note on the back as dir
ectors, or words to similar effect?
Answer, yes.
2. If you answer the above ques-
ton Eyes, then answer this ques-
ton: Did Mr.. Leindorf or Mr.. Stel-
ter sign such note relying upon
such statement so made by Mr..
Flatland?
Answer yes.
8. Did Mr.. Stelter and Mr.. Lein-
dorf sign as officers of the corpora
ton, and that they were not bound
as individuals?
Answer, Eyes.
There were also other questions.
Auto Strikes Animal
AS William Wiesloh was driving
north in an automobile few miles
south of Lime Ridge he met Hen
ny Drerschmeier leading bull. The
owner, Albert Brandt, was at the
home of Halsey Sedgwick at the
time. A leg of the animal was
broken and the beast had to oe
killed, resulting in a suit for the
damages, $500.
The questions at issue were
whether the animal was far enough
over in the road for the car to pass
or whether he swung himself
around just as the car came along.
In charging the jury Judge Cros-
by explained the driver of an auto
mobile and all others, pedestrians
and vehicles, had equal rights. The
driver of car must keep it under
control and stop if necessary. In
meeting persons or animals on the
road the driver Of machine has
right to assume that persons he
is meeting will turn to the right.
In case he sees they do not intend
to turn to the right he must stop
his machine. Other points of law
were also explained before the jury
retired.
Uness changed by the court, the
plaintiff, Albert Brandt, won the
case. according to the answers in
the special verdict as follows:
L. Did the defendant fail to ex-
ercise ordinary care in the man
agement and control of the auto
cobile he was driving at and i'm
mediately prior to the injury to
the plaintiffs bull?
2. If you answer the first ques-
Answer, Eyes
ton yes" then answer this ques
ton: Was such failure to exercise
ordinary care the proximate cause
of the injury to plaintiffs bull?
Answer, Eyes"
8. Did any want of ordinary
care on the part of Henry Dresch
meier, who was leading the plain
tiff's bull, contribute to produce
the injury to the bull?
Answer. No.
4. If the court is of the opinion
that the plaintiff should recover,
what sum will reasonably compen
safe him for damages caused by
injury to said bull
Answer, $500.
The witnesses: Albert Brandt,
Henry Drerschmeir. Carl Jensen.
Alb. Koenig, Albert Strecker. Hen