Jasper County Democrat, Volume 18, Number 67, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 November 1915 — COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF [ARTICLE]

COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF

Inloresting Paragraphs From the Various Departments OF JASPER COUNTY CAPITOL rThe Legal News Epitomized—Together With Other Notes Gathered From the Several County Offices. Attorney Laßue went to Huntington on professional business Thursday. George H. Gifford, executor of the estate of the late B. J. Gifford, was up from Tipton a few days this week on business connected with the estate. New suits filed: No. 8523. Monticello National Bank vs. Charles W. Bussell; suit on note. Demand $585. No. 8524. W. E. Boyle vs. George F. Meyers; suit to recover $506.92, assessments on the Dexter ditch, which has heretofore been in court in the Michaels vs. Caldwell et al cases. Mr. Meyers sold the land assessed for Boyle to Caldwell, and Caldwell conveyed it to the Michaels boys. In the suit brought judgment was rendered against Boyle for the assessments, and he now claims that under his contract with Mr. Meyers, Meyers was to pay the assessments, or to sell the land subject thereto. The Remington Christian church case came up for argument on demurrer before Judge Hanley Wednesday and lasted all afternoon and part of the evening. Kit Sill, of Monticello, who is associated with Jasper Guy representing the plaintiff, and Dan Fraser of Fowler, representing the defense, made the arguments. The court has not as yet ruled on the demurrer, but will probably do so in a few days. The case connot be tried this term in any event, as the time is all taken up, and will therefore go over until the February term, no matter how the ruling is. The argument of Mr. Fraser, while long and somewhat tedious, was quite interesting, as Dan quoted frequently from Holy writ and ancient history to sustain his position. He quoted from the 18th chapter of Matthew as to the disposal of members of a church, and claimed that the officers of this church had followed this procedure. His position was that the defendants were the church officers and that the plaintiff, Mr. Johnson, had been removed from the church membership in a lawful manner, as provided by the church, and that the civil courts could not therefore enquire into or question the action. ' The plaintiff alleges that the action was that of men who assumed authority which they did not possess, and that it was done to humiliate and disgrace the plaintiff, etc.