The Week In The Circuit Court

The jury in the case of Louis Winans vs. Sarah R. Cole, in Friday last, rendered a verdict of $150 for the plaintiff. As ruentioned last week, this was a Chelsea appeal case, in which Mr. Winans sued for the expense of carring for a little daughter of Mrs. Oole. On Saturday, another Chelsea case was put on trial, the case of Gottlieb Ahnenmiller vs. Frank Staffan. This was a suit for trespass brought to determine the ownership of flfteen acres of huckleberry marsh, including the huckleberry erop of this year. The land in dispute is said to be worth about $75, and both parties claimed to have been in possession and to be the rightful owners of the land. The jury on Monday brought in a verdict of six cents for the plaintiff, showing that they believed him to be the owner of the huckleberry marsh. As an aside it may be remarked that the marsh in dispute was the cause for the organization some years ago of a company to utilize the marsh for peat, but some way the peat didn't prove such a desirable commodity, and the company soon expired. The case of Nancy Conklin vs. the Michigan Central was discontinued without costs. A motion for a continuance in the case of the People vs. Francis Gonld was denied. The motion gave rise to a lively set-to between the court and the counsel for the defendant, in which the court was remiuded tliat "anger was not courage,-' and the counsel was . admonished to be seated with a hint : tliat a repetition of the insinuation would be cause for his taking his seat ; outside the bar. The case of Comstock F. Ilill vs. Hiram Briggs was put on trial Tuesday. The suit was on a promisory note, the question at issue being , whether or not a claimed payment of $100 had been made. The jury, after being out some time, brought in verdict of no cause of action. Judge Kinne decided the chancery case of Jane Lamb, et al., vs. the Township of Ann Arbor, Tuesday. This, it will be remembered, was a suit over the building of a sluice across the Dixboro road, which was claimed to flood the lands of the complainants. The judge decided in favor of the township, dismissing the bill with costs not exceeding $50. ïhe complainants were also directed to remove so niuch of the stone wall as they had bnild in front of the sluice as prevented the natural flow of the water.