Circuit Court Proceedings

The following cases have been disposcd of in the circuit court eince our last report, Judge Morris preiding; Everett B. Clark clerk : Tho people vs. Patrlck Cari. Information for Hssuiiil wiili iutent in commlt rupe. Jury lisHgreed. Kecognizance was eutered luto for appearance at the next term of court in the sum oí $500, witb Chas. McCormlck as securlty. Zepherlne E. Lee vs. Fredrlck M. Ijee. Decree oí dlvorce gran ted. Harrlet Bycraft vs. E. Bycraft. Decree of divorce granted. Dwight C. Branch vs. Phoebe Branch. Deoree of d 1 vorce gran ted . Ja. Davls, Philip Uauss, Tobías Hehr vs. Jos. Anili'tti'. Flndlng of court, no cause of actlon. Judgment for costs ixi fiivor of defentlant In each case. The people vs. Chus. Downer. Information for larceny. Sen tence suspended. Anna WlUlnson vs. Jas. Wllkluson. Judgment for defendaut of $3,ti'27.5O. John Loney vs. K. Bealian. Judgment for plaintlQ' vs. defendaut and surety lor 8ó" U4 and costs to be taxed. Chas. Moore vs. Volney Davenport. Motlon lor new trial denled, wlth costs. M. L. Shutts vs. city of YpsllanU. Verdict for plalntlff $45 and costs. Kiist National Bank vs. W. S . Hlcks et al. Defendants to have untü July ISth to Ule and serve blll of exeepllons. Lucetta Mc.Maiin vs. Peter McMann. Decree of divorce granted. Uearlug ol quesllou upou alimony contlnuod. Emma J. Hatch vs. Frank '"" ;¦' J:. M. Congdon. JudBUitt' ' delault for plalnlltl Í15N andv"o. THe people vs. John 8ears. Seutenced to one yearanduine nionths at the Jackson State's rlson. Alice J. Smith vs. Ilenry Sinlth. Decree of dlvorce grauted. su. Tiiian Hlckley vs. Andrew Miller. Judgnent on default for plalntül' $528.(63. Alphonso P. Ambrose vs John H. Ambrose. rudiment on default $238.78. John J. Schulth vs. Catherlue Schulth. Decree of dlvorce granted. Anna C. Slmpsou vs. Walter 8. Hlcks. Dlscontinued by plalntifl'. M. D. Beyrolds vs. W. P. Campbell. Time o settle case extended three months after rtliiï decree. John Atklnson vs. Michigan Paper Co. Judgment by court of $i,29ö umi rost. John R. Prlce et al vs. Michigan Paper Co. udgment by court $5,2&).54 and costs. In the matter of the appeal of Nouh W". Jheever and Edward Treadwell, as executors of the wlll of Hlram Arnold, from the decisión of the probate court. Appeal dlsmlssed. The followlng Is the opinión of the Judge In rendering hls decisión : " Kxecutors and admluls:rators when quallflel and actlng for the estáte, represent the estáte, and may take an appeal. or do any other legal act whlch the Interest of Lbfi estáte they represent may requlre. They may be aurlcved fn thelr official capaclty, as it were. LJtlgation over the wllls of deccased persons has become a great and growing evll. Estates luive been squandered In law to Kiatify the personal feellog of Individuals. An inliKlitened public jiollcy, as well as the good WDM of the comuuity favors tho avoldlng of litigatlon over the etitates of decedenUi, when It cao be done by such oompromlse as Is reaNOt)alily fiilr. In tbe present case, the probate of the wlll was coutested, and all partios havlng tinulM a Mttlement, apparently satlsfactory to thein, the projiouets ceased to press the wlll and probate of the same was refused. The executors named In the wlll have appealed to iIhk court from such refusal, and the niotiou umler coiislderntlon Is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellants are uot ]trlles who can be agrleved by the decree of the probate court deuy Ing probate of the wlll. lf any of the helrs at law, devlsees, legaU-es or biinellciarte under the wlll are dlssiitisilinl wlth the iiciioii of the probate court, they may dou btless lake an appeal; and lf they do not appeal, the jiresumpllou would be thal they are siitlstled w i Ih the decree. lf all the helrs at law and beneficiarles under the will are satlsfled wltli the proceedlngs, It would beagalnsl pub lic pollcy lopermil the cxecutors named in the wlll to precipítate thein lnto a useless Iltlgutlou, to be proseeuled at the expense of the estate. This court holds that the interest of the appellants, under ;said wlll, Is so remote that they cannot be agrleved by the actlou of the probate court In denylng probate of sald wlll, umi that this appeal must be dlsmlssed wlth cosU to the appellants. GOU V. MOKKIH. Circuit Judge.' In the matter of petltlon of Sarah Uoodrlch for leave to appeal from Probate Judge. PctltlOU .l.-Iili.l. Catherlne Gwlnner vs. Orrln B. DoWolf. 1'rcKifs taken nnd case BUbmltted. Agnes Thoruton vh. Edward Thornton. Decree of dlvorce granted. Jay M. Woods vs. EHJah A. Woods. Decree of dl vorce granted. lioretta E. McCollough vs. Hlram Day, On trial. M. II. Breiman admltted to the bar.