Jasper County Democrat, Volume 17, Number 79, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 January 1915 — COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF [ARTICLE]

COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF

Interesting Paragraphs From the Various Departments OF JASPER COUNTY CAPITOL The Legal News Epitomized—Together With Other Notes Gathered From The Several County Offices. •„ •. ■' '• ■ •, ■. Court Reporter Wagner was a Chicago visitor a few days the first of the week. The January 5 term of the Newton circuit court will convene in Kentland next Monday. Our next term will be on the second Monday in February. The county assessor’s office, which for the past two years has been located in the southeast corner room on the third floor of the court house, £ has been moved back to' the old quarters on the first floor, where the county agent’s quarters were recently located. The Tolan stone road in White county was let Tuesday to Stanton, Spencer and Unroe of Wolcott, for $12,985, There were twelve other bidders, and the bids ranged from ’512,980 to $17,642, the latter bid being that of Charles Kain. B. J. Moore and Walter Porter put in a bid on the work of $16,497 or $3,500 more than it was let for.

The Democrat is informed that the county commissioners will buy boulevard lights for the other three sides of' the public square providing j the council will make an appropria-, I tion for the purpose. The amount i needed is $750, the city agreeing mo furnish the “juice” and keep the lights in repair free of charge. It is I probable that the council will make the necessary appropriation. New suits filed: No. 8345. Atlas Coal & Coke Co. vs. Andrew Granger, et al; action on account. Demand for judgment of $96.69 and that alleged pretended sale of general store in ] Demotte to Lawrence Grosshan and ; Ransford Replogle be set aside and 1 a receiver be put in charge of same. I No. 8346. John Mourick vs. George Bowman; action on account. Demand SBS. No. 8347. Albertus M. Yeoman, adm., vs. Jasper Makeever et al; petition to sell real estate. No. 8348. Milton B. and Samuel D. Roth vs. Frank B. Tiam; suit on account. Demand $79.03. No. 8349. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. vs. Andrew Granger; suit on account. Demand $277.

The county council has appropriated SIOO to carry up the case recently decided adversely to the council in the employment of a county agent, wherein Judge Hanley mandated the council to make the necessary appropriation for sqch agent, and The Democrat is informed that Court Reporter Wagner has gotten up a transcript of the evidence for the council, at its request, but no precipe has been filed in the clerk’s office as yet for a transcript of the proceedings there. This probably will be done very shortly, however. Some nfembers of the council are quoted as saying that they have no hope of winning out in the higher court, as it has already decided in a like case taken up from Covington epupty that the council i ust apropriate such funds, but that they can delay the mater a year or more by taking this appeal.

The case of Gilespie et al vs. Darroch? guardian et al, taken up from circuit court, was affirmed by the appellate court this week. This case concerns the sale of some lands near- Roselawn, in Newton county, and is of interest to many readers of The Democrat in that locality. The decision was by Judge Shea, and the court held: 711 A minor girl owned/a farm of eighty acres, worth $3,200, rented at JIOO per year, with improvements in good cbndition. Guardian died, with ward owing guardian advancements, and guardians’ son was appointed guardian. Appellant G. developed sale of the farm on false value of farm,’ and obtained a sale to his brother, regular on its face, for $1,200. Young guardian reimbursed

his father’s estate and resigned, and appellee was thereafter appointed guardian and brought this suit to set aside deed by guardian. Appellants filed demurrer with memorandu’m, but did not question appellee’s right to sue as guardian instead of suit by ward and friend. By failure do raise question in memorandum, appellants waived it. Party can not cover up in memorandum objections really relied uporfy (2) Where appellee filed notice in its pendens record, other appellees, who are residents of Illinois, and bought land without actual notice but after lis pendens notice was filed, took subject to-equities. (3) The alleged fraud may be inferred from the evidence. (4) The minor was the w r ard of both the guardian and the court. “Mere technicalities will not warrant the court in upholding a sale of the ward’s property which results in a wrong and injustice to that ward.” (5) The opposing party can not object because a guardian ad litem was appointed for ward without summons. The, notice to ward is to protect its interest, not opposing party’s interest.