Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 83, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 March 1909 — THE GOURT HOHSE [ARTICLE]

THE GOURT HOHSE

Items Picked Up About the County Capitol. i 2 Auditor Leatherman was in Chicago Saturday on business. Benton, Greene and Montgomery counties voted yesterday on the county option proposition. New suits filed: No. 7427. Roth Bros. vs. Frank B. Hann suit on account. Demand $93.11. * Still there’s nothing doing in the marriage license business, only two licenses having been issued this month. Treasurer Allman was in Wheatfield Monday and made arrangements for the collection of north-end taxes at the Wheatfleld hank. ''LjSx-sheriff O’Connor tells us that tne Frank Dittle, tke Newton copnty horsethief, who with John McCoy broke jail here a few years ago, is now serving time in Nebraska for stealing a horse near Freemont, Neb. Mr. O’Connor saw in The Democrat the mention made by the Kentland Enterprise of a man of similar name having been convicted for horse stealing, and investigated the matter, only to find that it was his old prisoner. \J — otAugust Woolbrandt of Walker tp., was adjudged insane at an inquest held before Squire Van Doozer of Wheatfleld last Thursday, and application has been made for his admittance to the insane asylum at Longcliff. He labors under the delusion that the state militia is marching after him and the report of a gun will send him into paroxysms of .fever. Woolbrandt is married and owns an 80 acre farm near Wheatfleld. If a county option election is to be held in Jasper county it will be necessary to call the county council together in special session to make an appropriation to pay the expense thereof, there being no appropriation existing for special elections at the present time, and the county commissioners have no authority to attempt to bind the county in any way unless there is an appropriation existing at the time. In fact they are prohibited from doing so, and it is not likely will order an election until after an appropriaion has been made. This may delay the election until May. The applican for saloon license at Kersey will be met with a remonstrance filed last October, some two or three months before the old remonstrance expired. Under the light vote cast two years ago it did not take very many names to defeat license in that township, but under the vote cast last fall it would take 103 names. There were 88 names on the remonstrance filed. It is evidently the intention to contest this remonstrance as the old one did not expire until after the election and the law is that the required remonstrance number is based on the vote cast at the last preceding general election. Is the remonstrance filed in October a legal one when the old one did not expire until after the last election? Or should the remonstrance have been filed since said election and contain a majority of the voting strength of the township as shown by the vote at said election?