Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 April 1889 — That Horse Case from Keener. [ARTICLE]

That Horse Case from Keener.

The jury in the case from Keener tp., of Noah Frame vs. John L. Town, brought in their verdict last Friday morning. One of Town’s horses died in July last, and the same day that it died he put another horse into its vacant stall which he had bought of Frame. In payment he gave a note, which note is not yet due. The disease which Town’s horse died from was shown pretty conclusively to have been the farcy, a contagious disease, allied to the glanders. As to what the condition of the horse bought of Frame was in, when bought, there was a conflict of testimony. Town and his family testified that he appeared to be sick the next day. A number of ; good witnesses, however, testified that the horse seemed to be all right for several days after its purchase, and Town himself was proven to have expressed himself well pleased with" the anima], a week or more after he bought it; and the fact that he did not give his note for the horse until aftei he had owned and it for 5 days, was put in evidence to show that he was satisfied that the horse was all right, or else he would have refused to give the note. About 2 weeks after the newjiorse was bought it became sidfand its disease was also pronounced the farcy, by Dr. I. Robbins, a practicing physician, and others. About two weeks after the' horse Bbcame sick, Town led it back in the night, and tied it in or near Frame's barn, where he had otherljorses stabled. Frame first to induce Town to take the* horse away, and then he turned it loose on the commons, where it Eventually died. The next development was th at two horses and a mule belonging to Frame were taken sick, evidently with the same disease that the Town horses died of, and the mule died, but the other horse finally got well, afterAnuch trouble and expense in caring for it. The present suit wfts brought by Frame to recover damages for the dead horse and inule and the loss occasioned by the sickness of the other horse. Frame based his suit on the claim that the horse which Town had brought back had communicated the disease to Frame’s gorses. The jury evidently took Frame’s view of the xiase, as tlhey gave him a verdict of !5240. h