Jasper County Democrat, Volume 14, Number 66, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 November 1911 — COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF [ARTICLE]

COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF

Interesting Paragrapte from tlie , Various Departments OF JASPER COUNTY CAPITOL The Legal News Epitomized— Together with Other Notes Gathered from the - Several County Offices. Three marriage licenses have been issued this month only. Miss Eva Moore is assisting in the rush of record work in the clerk’s office at present. No arrest has been made to date on the single indictment returned by the grand* jury last week. The grand jury will meet again Thursday to round up some unfinished business.

New suits filed: No. 7800. George W. Casey vs. Alexander; L. McDonnel; action for commission on sale and attachment. Demand S4OO. The Democrat has just finished printing what is probably the largest law brief ever printed in Jasper county, and very few larger ones have ever been printed in the entire state. It is the brief for appellants in the Pancoast ditch case, and makes a book of 160 pages of the regulation brief size.

Complaint comes from various parts of the county of damage to fences and other property by hunters who without leave or license travel over private lands. It is against the law to hunt upon the farm or lands of another without first having secured the consent of the landowner, arid any hunter failing /to secure such consent is a trespasser and is liable to prosecution and a heavy fine. Hunters should bear this fact in mind before entering upon any lands in pursuit of game in Indiana. It is not necessary for the farmer to give notice to the public either by. publication or posting that hunting will not be allowed on his premises. The law makes it the duty of the hunter to secure the permission and his failure to do so makes him a law-breaker and liable to criminal prosecution.

Not much is doing in court this week, only one case acted upon Monday and but one set for yesterday. The Lucas vs. Lucas divorce case was set for Monday, but no action was taken on same as shown by the Judge's docket. The case heard Monday was: A. • v

No. 7756. William B. Austin vs. James M. Dickey, et al.; judgment of foreclosure for $1,761.28. The trial calendar is as follows : Second week —Nov. 20, No. 7727. Leona May Lucas vs. Joseph A. Lucas; Nov. 21, No. 7746. Dickinson Trusit Co. vs. Wm. Grossman, et al.;< Nov. 22, Mandora Alice Cox vs. James H. Cox.

Third No. 7669. State of Indiana, ex rel Elizabeth Gangloff vs. Myrt B. Price, et al.; Nov. 27, No. 7793, Eva Greenlee vs. Herman Clinger; Nov. 28, No. 7714, Myrtle Lewin vs. W. I. Hoover, sheriff; Nov. 29, No. 7736, John B. Shelby, et al. vs. Jesse Walker; No. 7780, Thomas W. Grant vs. Ira Norris; Dec. 1, No. 7206, Bishir vs. Bishir.

Fourth week—-Dec. 4, No. 6496, Hollingswotrh, adm. vs. Parker, et al.; No. 6535, Hollingsworth vs. Hollingsworth, adm.; Dec. 5, No. 7796, Taylor vs. Kent, et al. Dec. 7, No. 7777, Z. A. Cox vs. Lydia G. Monnett. \ And now Purtelle says—in his letter to. the Indianapolis News^ —“we had changed the line of the road after calling the elections, leaving those two townships out (Carpenter and. Newton) making no effort to carry them.” If so—and he has “changed the line of the road” so often, in his mind, and still accomplishes ( nothing—why did he not have these elections caU- - . .■ t ■

ed off instead of putting the people to the trouble and expense of going to the polls to vote against his scheme? He might, by having pursued this course, have saved his “bonds” put up to cover the expense of the elections, which he also tells the News were “ good and sufficient.” Taking him at his word—worthless as it is—that he had “changed the line of the road and cut those two townships out,” and yet made no effort to call off the elections nor inform the people of the Change, is all the more reason why the county commissioners should get busy and collect on those “good and sufficient” bonds put up to cover the expense of these elections.