Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 November 1883 — THE CIRCUIT COURT. [ARTICLE]

THE CIRCUIT COURT.

The I.amb Larceny Case. The Sellick family, of Kenosha, Wisconsin, own a large fartn in Walker tp., land keep thereon, considerable livetock. One James J. Burton, had been employed by them, to live on the arm and care for the stock. He claimed, truly or falsely, that the Sellicks were backward in paying his wages, and talked of bringing suit against them for the same. James Lamb was a particular friends of Burton. Both Burton and Lamb professed to believe that the former had a ripht to sell enough of the property in his care, •to pay the amount claimed to be owing him from the Sellicks. On or about the 16th day of July, Burton and Lamb took four of Sellick’s best horses, harnesses, and a vehicle and went, through swamps and unfrequented roads, to Monee, 111. It was a clear case of horse stealing, although Lamb claims .to have thought otherwise and to have .been the tool and victim of the design* lag Burton. Two of the horses were sold at Monee, for much less than their real value; and there Burton and Lamb parted company. Lamb receiving, according to his own story, a few dollars in money, the harness and “buckboard”, as payment for the par\ he had taken in the affair. Burton departed with the remaining t\vo horses and subsequently sold them in Wilmington, 111. The harness and buckboard were left at Monee, subject to Lamb's orders. All of the stolen property, including the horses, has since been recovered by the Sellicks, but at great trouble and expense. Lamb returned to Keener township, in a short time, and in August was ar. rested by Sheriff Powell, and has since been it jail. At the time of Jiis arrest *he had in his possession a saddle which had belonged to the Sellicks and which he claimed to have bought from Burton and paid for. Lamb’s trial began

on the afternoon of Oct., 26th. and continued with some interruptions caused by sickness of the prisoner, until Tuesday evening following, when it was given to the jury. The latter soon decided that Lamb was gulty to at least one count of the indictment, but could not agree upon a penalty, until y o’clock Wednesday evening, when the penalty, mentioned last week, of one year in jail and a fine of SSO. was affixed. On Saturday ( last, before the court had pronounced judgement upon Lamb, in accordance, with the verdict 'of the jury, he, by his own motion, came into court, withdrew his former plea of not guilty and {[entered the plea of guilty instead. Judge Ward, taking into consideration the fact the maintaining him in jail for a protracted period was a useless expense to the county, sentenced him to 30 days in the jail and to pay a fine of£ten dollars. The attorneys in this case were Deputy Prosecutor Watson and M. F. Chilcote for the state and F. W. Babcock for the defense.

. . SURETY ok THE PEACE. The surety of the peace case againsf John F. Stone, of Remington, was tried Saturday. Stone was required to give bonds to the amount of SIOO, to do no harm to the persons or property of John Huffiae, or any of his family. The Yoeman Divorce Case. Yeoman vs. Yeoman, for divorce. Robert J. Yeoman brought suit by S. P. Thompson, his attorney, for divorce from his wife Indiana Yeoman on the grounds of abandonment, and asked for the custody of the child. The defendant, Indiana Yeoman by M. F. Chilcote, her attorney, filed a crossbill asking that she be granted, a decree of divorce from the plaintiff, Yeoman, on the grounds of desertion and cruel treatment, and asked fut custody of child, alimony, and permission to resume her maiden name, Indiana Makeever. Indiana Makeeveg was the daughter of Milton Makchver, one of the wealthiest and best known farmers of Jasper county. Khe married the plaintiff, Jan., sth, 1881. ~ The young couple lived with the bride's parents until the 7th of March, whdn they took Up their residence with Mr. Yeoman’s 'parents. The story of their brief marital life was told in full at the trial, and will be briefly recapitulated hero: On leaving her parents’ home Mrs. Yeoman’s mother, foreseeing that’ her daughter would soon suffer from the disordered digestion and failing appetite common to young wives in a delicate condition, had presented her with a small bottle of good liquor, to which had been added certain substances, as v cherry bark, perhaps, to import to it the character of bitters. Mr. Yeoman, it w •uld seem, is an ertri-’me tenfper-

ance man and objected to the use of the bitters. At any rate Mrs. Yeoman found, after she had takefl about two spoonsful of the bitters, that some substance had been added to it which it made very impalatable, and which she fearetl, though doubtless unnecessarily, was inserted with the intention of producing an abortion. The bottle was carried back to Mrs. Makeever, and again filled with bitters of the same character as before. This bottle was spoiled as the other had been before a single drop had been used by Mrs. Yeoman. A third bottle shared the skme fate. In July, the defendant, being then in a delicate condition, had been thrown from a w’igon and badly.injured. On the 31st of the month, it being Sunday, she; in company with her husband and several other persons, started for church, their way taking them past the bouse of her parents. Still suffering from her previous injury she found the ride in the wagon so painful that she informed her husband that she. could go no further; and requested him to stop, with her, at her [father’s house. As to what response was made to this request, thdir is a disagreement in the evidence, but at any rate, when the party reached the Makeevers’ house, Mrs. Yeoman, believing, as she claims that the wagon would not stop to allow her to alight, jumped from it, over one of the wheels; to the ground. This ill-advised jump, together with the effects of her previous injury, narrowly missed producing a miscarriage, and caused a protracted period of sickness.

The subsequent history of this unhappy affair, so far as the somewhat contradictory stories of the different parties will let it be known, will be briefly told. The husband insisted upon the immediate return of his wife to his home. . This she was unwilling, and according to her testimony utterly anable to do. Botn fJalties were high spirited, probably resentful, and indisposed to make concessions. The husband was perhaps neglectful and the wife exacting. The decision of the couA, after full defiberation, was in favor of the defendant, giving her a divorce tin the grounds of the custody of the child, the right to resume het maiden name, and alimony of one hundred dollars. ' A BIG RAILROAD CASE. li The case of Wright versus the L., N. A. &C. railroad company, for $15,000 damages for injuries sustained in passing nn der a bridge, brought here from White county, on change ot venue, was begun last Saturday, and continued on trial until last evening, and is now (Thursday morning) in the hands of the jury.