Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 January 1895 — Many Interesting Cases [ARTICLE]

Many Interesting Cases

Tried In The Circuit Court THE WAKARtSA DITCH WORSE TANGLED UP THAN EVER. ■ ■ V Js*' And the Iroquois Matter Stfll tJndecided. ..is.:. IMII.II. ,1 ...» • Last week was no doubt the banner week for the number of interesting jury trials in the history of the Jasper circuit court. Some six civil cases were tried in this manner and one criminal case. The most important event of the week, however, was the rendering of Judge McConnell’s decision in the -great Wakarusa ditch case. This was an appeal from the action of the county commissioners, last spring, in dismissing the whole proceedings, at the cost of the petitioners. Judge McConnell heard the appeal in June. His decision, now rendered, is a re* versal of the action of the commissioners.lt is to the effect that the ditch is still pending in the Commissioners’ Court, and only awaiting the action of the Commissioners of White county, in appointing a ditch viewer to succeed Wilson Van Meter who resigned, and it directs the White Co. commissioners to now ap-

point the viewer. The refusal of the White county commissioners to make the appointment was the first knockout for the ditch. Subsequently, a restraining order was issued by Judge Reynolds.'of the W hite circuit court, enjoining the commissioners of that county from appointing another viewer. Thus as the matter now stands, the White county commiSioners are, figuratively speaking (very figuratively, may it please the court,) “between the d—l and the deep sea.” If they appoint a viewer, they are in contempt of the White circuit court; if they don’t appoint one, they are in a head end collision with the Jasper circuit tribunal. After Judge McConnell’s decision was rendered, the Jasper county commissioners, by their attorneys, presented a certified copy of Judge Reynolds’ restraining order, above mentioned. This will have the effect of continuing the case in the circuit court awhile longer. The decision in the case of Martin J. Orcutt, vs. the L. N. A. <fc C. Ry. was. briefly mentioned last week. Orcutt and a companion named Kammer, both of Hammond, went oiiedayto Burnside, 111., the place where thelllinois Central tracks cross those of the Monon, [Western Indiana], and about 8 or 10 miles from Hammond. To get back to Hammond they jumped the night train on the Monon, when it came to a stop for the Central’s tracks. Kammer got onto the platform between the baggage and mail cars, and as the end doors of both were locked, he stayed on the platform. Immediately after Orcutt entered the smoker, according to the story they swore to, but after the train had started, a man with a lantern and wearing the uniform of the Monon, came to him and asked where he was going. He said, to Hammond and that the man enjoying the outdoor scenery on the baggage car platform, had to pay his fare, it being on Kammer’s business that they went to Burnside. While the train was in motion, [still according to the story] this man with the lantern, most as mysterious as he of the “Iron Mask” of history, left the smoker, jumped off the train, ran forward to where Kammer was and asked for his and Orcutt’s fare to

Hammond, 60 cents in all. Kammer handed out 50 cents, and before he could fish out the other 10 cents, the “magic lantern” man again jumped off the moving train, got on the smoker again, got the other 10 cents from Orcutt, and then vanished forever from the sight of men! Pretty soon the conductor came along. It was old Cap. 'Beaman, of crabbed memory. He asked Orcutt for his fare to Hammond. Orcutt replied to the effect that he had paid it, if not to the conductor then to the brakeman, and he would not pay it again. He swears he had plenty to pay with if he had wanted to. It does not appear, from the evidence, by the way, that Orcutt‘told the conductor that

it was his partner in front who had paid the fair. In fact, it is evident that Orcutt maintained a profound silence to the conductor as to the presence of Kammer in his airy perch on the baggage car platform, and it does not appear that Beaman knew Kammer was on the train. Orcutt and Beaman “chawed the rag” awhile, and then Beaman jerked Orcutt out of his seat, and waltzed him out on the platform. Here Orcutt stood until the train made its next stop, a i Hegewisch, only a mile and a half from Hammond, then Beaman came again, and fire d Orcutt off and told him if he caught him on the train again, he would “break his d—n neck.” All this time, be it known, the occupant of the lower berth on the baggage car platform, was separated by one car and two locked doors, from all knowledge of the Beaman-Orcutt unpleasantness. According to his testimony, he had paid

his own fare and all but 10 cents of Orcutt’s, and thus had no good reason 'to suspect trouble between the latter - and Beaman. Yet no sooner had Orcutt’s feet struck the ground than Kammer saw it and jumped off Too, of his own motion. Had he been fully conscious that he and Orcutt were trying to beat their way, he could not have got off any quicker. The two Walked the rest of the way to Hammond, and it being rainy overhead and slushy underfoot, Orcutt had an at-

tack of rheumatism, to which he is subject, and was confined to his house for some time. Beaman, the conductor, is dead, but the only brakeman on the train, an honest, manly looking lad, swore that during the whole run from Chicago to Hammond, he never stirred foot from the place which the strict order of the company require him to keep, while running over the much used Western Indiana tracks, namely at the rear door of the very last car on the train. He not only did not collect any cash from the men, but knew nothing about their being on the train. The jury detected the “ancient and the fish-like smell” on Orcutt and Kammer’s story about paying the mysterious brakeman, and although the Mank form of the special verdict which they were required to use, seemed to give credence to the story, they took good care that their decision was in favor of the defendant. It was a righteous verdict, even if it was in favor

of a corporation. The case of Samuel M. Laßue vs. Charles Pullins was tried by jury, Thursday. Mr. Laßue, acting in his capacity as a land agent, undertook to find a buyer for Mr. Pullins’ 160 acre farm, in Barkley tp.. The agreement between the two was that if Laßue sold the farm, he was to have a fee of SSO and besides that, all that he could get for the land above $35 per acre. He sold it for $37 per acre, and his total bill against Mr. Pullins was therefor $320 plussso or $370. Mr.Pullins only wanted to pay $l6O. Laßue offered to throw off the SSO and settle for $320. This Pullins declined, and Laßue brought the suit The jury found in his favor, with a verdict for $320. In the case of Joseph M. Kean, formerly of Rensselaer, now of Chicago, vs. Henry Fisher,of Walker tp. Kean sued for money claimed to be due on rent. Kean rented Fisher a lot of hay land, for SSOO cash rent. The proceeds of all the bay sold off the tract were to go to Keanuntil.his rent was paid. A man named Thomas, living in Walker, acted as Kean’s agent,' One Worley was sent down from Chicago, by Kean, to buy the hay. Fisher turned over to Thomas, Kean’s agent, something over SSOO worth of hay, which Thomas shipped in Kean’s name, but consigned to Worley. The latter paid $240 which went to Kean, but would not pay any more. Kean sued Fisher for the jury found that not only did not Fisher owe Kean anything, but they brought in a verdict in Fisher’s favor, of $75 for what Kean had received over and above his rent, in the shape of hay furnished to Thomas to feed his horses. It is understood that Fisher will now bring suit against Kean and his resident bondsmen for the damage he has sustained from not being allowed to sell his remaining hay, on account of its having been attached by Kean, at the beginning of this action.

Zilpha M. Jenks was tried Friday for adultery, on affidavit filed by her own brother, Mr. Vandusen. She lived in Keener tp. The witnesses for the state were the brother who made the affidavit and another brother. Their evidence was to the effect that Mrs. Jenks took in a tietourist from nowhere, named Barker, to help run her farm, and that’whenever Barker sat down on a stump, to gaze unawed at any amount of work, and of which he had no fear, Zilpha was always close by to cheer him in his arduous task of not doing

it. And on one such trying but tender occasion, Zilpha’s 190 and odd aviordupois were deposited in sweet and trustful confidence on one, (only one!) of Barker’s knees. They also testified that tor quite a long time the only bed room in the defendant’s partly rented house, which was left for her and Barker’s joint use, had one bed; a state of “single bededness” which the affectionate brothers took particular note of, whenever they gained ingress to Zilpha’s domicile, or indulged ma sly peep through her windows. The defense relied largely on the fact that these circumstances brought out by the. state, “didn’t prove nothin;” and it I was also shown that a very large | family row had been going on for some time between the accused and her brothers, because she would not rent to them her farm. The jury did not deliberate long before bringing in a verdict of “not guilty.” The defendant took her acquittal at the hands of the jury with becoming gratitude, and, hoping, no doubt, for a chance to “do as much for them sometime” she went forth, free as a bird and with moral character burnished bright as new, by process of law.

The case of Leroy Armstrong vs. Abraham Halleck and others, wi s an appeal from a justice court. Armstrong worked for one Thos. Joyner, at Kniman, while Joyner, to some extent at least, was acting aS the Hallecks’ agent. Joiner went busted and Armstrong sued Halleck, for the amount of his claim. The justice decided for Armstrong, but the jury in the circuit court, last week, decided the other way, and that Halleck was not responsible. The amount involved in this case was small, but a large number of similar claims were waiting on the result of this case, to the amount of many hundred dollars. In the case of the Jasper Co., Lumber Co., of Remington, of which Frank Wolfe is resident manager, against Charles Heusler and his father Chris. Hensler, Wolf sued for slls balance claimed by him to be due on a bill of lumber, for a residence, amounting in all to $615. The Henfilers claimed that they had made a square contract with Wolfe for a lump sum of $500; and this much they ha < already paid. The decision of the jury was in Heusler’s favor. The suit of Asa E. Flint and wife Josephine Flint, against Wm. Pentzer, of near Kniman, was the last trial Saturday. Mrs. ’Flint is a niece of Pentzer, who is quite an old man, and has been a preacher. Mrs. Flint whose name was then Lear and who, though unmarried had a little girl, went to live with Pentzer on his f arm, Nov. 14, 1888, keeping her child

with her. She stayed until Aug. 10, 1890, doing all his house work, sewing, mending Ac., and also did most of bis farm work for two seasons. She now sues for $570 for her work and for interest on the same. As an offset the defendant filed a bill charging her $3 a week for board all the time she was working her head off for him; and also charging at the same rate for the little girl’s board. These board bills amounted to $522. Other charges against her, including about $l4O loaned during the six rears preceding her residence with dm, raised the amount of his offset to SBO7. The jury appeared to think that matters were about even, but they threw the costs on to Pentzer by giving the plaintiff a verdict for sl. The libel suit of John Spacey, of Ambia, Benton Co., against John P. Carr, Jr., of the Fowler Leader, was dismissed by Spacey. It is said that le intends to take a fresh hitch at the matter in order to bring in John Carr Sr., who has got all thewealth, and the bulk of the good sense and decency in the Carr family. Mrs. Leota M. Faris, the hearing of whose case was mentioned last week, was given a divorce from Geo. W. Faris, and alimony of SSOO. The defendant also has to pay the costs. The plaintiff’s former name Jones was restored to her. It was expected that Judge Wiley would render his decision, Tuesday morning, in the celebrated and very important Iroquois River Ditch, appealed to him from the commissioners’ court. Instead of a decision, lowever, the Judge announced that le must decline to decide the matter at all. And for the very good reason that while he had the matter under advisement, and after its trial before him, some overzealous parties forwarded him a petition or argument in the case, signed by 20 or more interested parties. ’Jiidge Gillett, of the Lake-Porter circuit, will now be requested to decide the case. Mrs. Gertrude Robinson, of Rensselaer, was given a divorce from Harvey Robinson, for abandonment and cruel treatment. The custody of the only child, a boy of about 5 was given to the mother.