Jasper County Democrat, Volume 18, Number 92, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 February 1916 — NEWTON CIRCUIT COURT ITEMS [ARTICLE]

NEWTON CIRCUIT COURT ITEMS

Of Interest to The Democrat Readers, Taken from Keutland Democrat. Following are some of the more important happenings during the closing days of the last term of the Newton circuit court that will be of interest to readers of The Democrat, aajsome of the cases mentioned were taken from Jasper county to Newton on change of venue: A. H. llopkins vs. Edgar L. Nicholson et al; judgment for S3OO and mortgage on certain cattels foreclosed. .Maude Gilman vs. George W. Gilman: divorce granted and plaintiff given $1,200 alimony. John F. Judy vs. Harry B. Brown, foreclosure of chattel mortgage: judgment for the defendant— that the plaintiff take nothing from him and that the defendant recover from plaintiff his costs incurred because of the suit. Plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled but his appeal to the appellate court granted and appeal bond in sum of SIOO approved. Alma Stahl et al va. John Guildenzctyh et al; report of commissioners C. H. Stucker, W. W, Miller and Charles Shriver of partition of real estate in Jackson township, confirmed by court. This estate is the northeast quarter of section 2 in Jackson tp., excepting the right-of-way of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway company and contains 156.72 acres. In the division the plaintiffs, Alma A., Lawrence and Everett E. Stahl were given 25 acres, John Guildenzoph 15. acres, Emma Lane 29 acres, Mattie Scliultze 30 acres, Rosa Plantz 30 acres, more or less, subject to her payment of $l5O to be divided equally with Julius Guildenzoph, Emma Lane and Mattie Schultze. Albert Defries vs. Vernon Cyphers; a case that grc-w out of the sale of a stock of goods and fixtures at Thayer about a year ago, son which proper payment had not been made, and which case has since passed through different justices of the peace courts and finally up to - the circuit court on appeal, was tried by jury last Thursday and “after some time spent in deliberation” the jury returned into court their answers (o two interrogatories addressed to them along with their general verdict as follows: Interrogatories— 1. At the time this suit was originally brought, was the plaintiff entitled to the possession of the premises and fixtures mentioned and described in the complaint? Ans. —Yes; 2. Is the plaintiff now entitled to the possession of the premises and fixtures mention and described in the complaint? Ans.--Yes. And their verdict read: “We the jury, find for the plaintiff that he is entitled so the possession and return of all the property mentioned in the complaint and in lieu of such return that he have judgment for $34 7 against all defendants.—J. U, Wildasln, Foreman.”