Jasper County Democrat, Volume 6, Number 45, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 February 1904 — COURT HOUSE NEWS. [ARTICLE]

COURT HOUSE NEWS.

I tacos of Interest (lathered la the Of* flees of the County Capitol. No marriage licenses have been issued since Jan. 26. .Q— — Greenip I. Thomas has announced himself as a candidate for the republican nomination for trustee of Union tp. The first month of leap year witnessed only six marriage licenses, against 12 for the month previous and 11 for January, 1903. —o — Roy Blue of Wheatfield; wants to be prosecuting attorney; also Orth Grows of Morocco, and the present incumbent, John Sink of Rose Lawn wants to hold on another term. —o — During the month of January there were 280 instruments fild for record with the recorder of Jasper county. Of this number 52 were deeds (all kinds!, 62 real estate mortgages, 73 chattel mortgages, 5 mechanic’s liens, 67 mortgage releases, 8 assignments of mortgage, 3 leases, 5 affidavits, and 5 certificates of election. It will be seen that the real estate and chattel mortgages and mechanic’s Bens were 140 for the month, while the mortgage releases were but 67, or less than one-half the number of mortgages. January is a debt-paying month, too. If these figures indicate general prosperity we are at a loss to understand where it comes in at.

. But little of importance has been done in the circuit oourt this week except make up issues and set cases for trial. The petit jury is oalled for 11 a. m., Monday and Judge Habb of the Benton-Foun-tain-Warren circuit will be here and the big Spencer will case from White county will be taken up. It is expected this case will occupy two weeks of the term, and no other cases have been set for trial until the third week. Following is the oourt calendar prepared At this time: Third^Thursday: Parker vs. Thurston, et al. Third Friday: Gundy vs. Lemoine; Arnold vs. Arnold; Pendergrass vs. Kline. Third Saturday: Gifford vs. Toomire. Fourth Tuesday: Thomas vs. Meyers, et al; Chaffin vs. Chaffin. Fourth Wednesday: Halstead vs. Tanner, et al; Wellington vs. Gleason. Fourth Thursday: Bmith vs. Halligan, et al; Keller vs. Mohler. Fourth Friday: Gant vs. Spriggs. ' Later —The Spencer will case has been settled and a new calender will be made np.

We find that some people do not understand the “moans operandi” of the poor farm requisitions, and for their benefit we will explain it *■ fully: Under tbe present law the superintendent is required to make out a list of the supplies that will be required each three months, on blank forms furnished for the purpose, called “requisitions.” These requisitions are filed with the county auditor are looked over by the commissioners who may “cut” any items therein (which is never done, we believe) and they, approve the list and order advertisement for bids for furnishing same. The bidders look over the list and file their bid for the entire amount, which the successful bidder does furnish, or is supposed to—and we have do doubt does—and the county always pays the full amount of the bid, which of course, means that the contractor has furnished every item contained in the list and of the quantities specified. Sometimes, evidently, more is furnished and paid for than is specified in the requisition, as evidenced by the contracts let last September. The requisition at that time included “meat,” and Moody & Both were the only bidders, as shown from the records, their bid for the ensuing three months of that quarter being $81.50. At the December term of commissioners’ court Moody & Both were allowed a total of $120.31 for “meat for poor farm,” in three separate bills, as follows: $18:92, $46.31, $56.07, none of which, it will be seen, are for the same amount as their bid and for which they were awarded the contract. New snits filed: No. 6612. William B. Austin vs. Ward B. Peterson et al; action on note and mortgage. Demand S6OO.

No, 6613. The Government Building and Loan Institution vs. Albert Sayers et al; aotion on note and mortgage, demand $350.

No, 6614. Anna M. Vick vs. Charles L. Vick; action for divorce. The complaint charges abandonment. Young Vick’s matrimonial escapades are familiar to most of our readers. It will be remembered that he married the plaintiff, then Anna M. Sommers, in July, 1900, with whom he lived until February, 1902, about which time he married a girl in Chicago, where he was then working. After a few weeks of married bliss Vick left the Chicago wife and went to Sun man, Ripley countv, where he shortly married the daughter of a farmer near that place. The Chicago wife learned of his duplicity and caused his arrest, but he made his escape from the sheriff and his matrimonial career since that time is unknown here. He was quite young when he married these three women and had apparently started out to out-distance the record of King Solomon of bible times.

No. 6615. E. T. Kinney Company vs. Daniel Wood and Samuel F. Wood; action on note, demand $125. No. 6616. James H. Chapman vs. Geo, W. Casey; action on note, demand SSO. No. 6617. Hiram Goodwin vs. Helen M. Bartlett, et al; action to amend'record. No. 6618. James F. Irwin vs. John Karr; action on notes; demand SIOO. No. 6619. Bridge City Candy Co. vs. Jane Justin; action on account; transcript from Newton circuit court.