Volume 40 — Wisconsin Reports

Ch. 177, Laws of 1875, approved on the 4th of March of that year, declares that “ the county board of supervisors of Milwaukee county shall appropriate and allow to the county treasurer of said county the sum of three thousand dollars per annum in addition to the salary now allowed him for the term commencing on the first Monday of January, 1875, for the purpose of enabling him to employ such clerks and assistance as may be necessary in bis office during said term; said sum…

Action against Swineford as author, and Watrous and Kutchin as publishers, of an alleged libel. Stomeford having demurred, and his codefendants having answered, the former moved for a change of the place of trial, upon his affidavit that the judge of the above named court was prejudiced against him.

Replevin, for a billiard table of tbe alleged value of three hundred dollars. Tbe property was replevied, and delivered to tbe plaintiff! Tbe complaint is in tbe usual form, alleging that tbe defendant wrongfully detains tbe property. Tbe answer is: 1. A general denial; 2. An averment that the property belongs to tbe defendant and bis copartner, one ELoebke.

Action for injuries to the plaintiff wife alleged to have been caused by tbe defective condition of a highway in the defendant town. The plaintiffs had a verdict for $5,000 damages; the court refused a new trial, and rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict; and defendant appealed. The nature of the defenses relied on in the trial court, and the errors alleged to reverse the judgment, will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Action by husband and wife for injuries to the wife, resulting from a defective sidewalk iá the defendant city. Tlie complaint does not allege tliat any notice, snch. as is described in ch. 86, Laws of 1875, was given to any officer of the city.* The defendant demurred to the complaint as not stating a cause of action; and appealed from an order overruling the demurrer.

Trespass quare claustim. The complaint alleges that the defendant broke and entered plaintiff’s close in said city, and dug and carried away a large quantity of earth and soil, part and parcel of said close, for which damages to the amount of five hundred dollars are claimed. The answer is a general denial.

Action to foreclose a mortgage given to secure a note for $1,000, with interest at'ten per cent., dated January 26, 1869. The first year’s interest was retained by the plaintiff out of the amount loaned. There were three payments of interest, of $100 each, found indorsed upon the note at the time of the trial; the first indorsement being without date, the second dated February 11, 1871, and the third February 10, 1872.

Action for a balance alleged to be due for mill machinery sold and delivered to the defendant by C. & J. Cooper, manufacturers, of Mt. Yernon, Ohio. The plaintiff claimed as as-signee of said firm.

This is an action upon a large number of county orders, in the usual form, purporting to have been issued by the authority of the defendant board of supervisors. The complaint states a separate cause of action on each, order in favor of the plaintiff, and is verified. The defendant failed to answer within the time prescribed by law, or to appear in the action, and judgment by default was rendered for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim.

Ejectment. The answer, in addition to a general denial, relied upon the following facts: On the 6th of February, 1854, the plaintiff was by the county court of said county adjudged to be a lunatic, and one Gaston was duly appointed guardian of his person and property, and qualified and entered upon his duties as such. Afterwards, about March 10, 1854, Gaston resigned said office, and his resignation was duly accepted by said county court.

Action to obtain judicial construction of certain clauses in the will of the plaintiffs testator. In May, 1874, Eicbard Catlin, late of tbe county of Pond du Lac, died, leaving bis last will and testament, wbicb was duly admitted to probate by tbe proper court in July following. Tbe plaintiffs are named therein as executors, and bave duly qualified and entered upon tbe discharge of their duties as such.

Action on tbe official bond given by Coe, February 10, 1873, as treasurer of Joint School District No. 1 of tbe towns of Edson and Sigel in Cbippewa county. Tbe bond runs to said district, as the statute requires (Tay.

On complaint of tRe defendant, a warrant was issued Ry a justice of the peace against the plaintiff’s ward, Rosina Flaig, and she was arrested, brought before the justice, and duly examined on a charge of perjury. The examination resulted in her discharge. This action is to' recover damages for such prosecution, the complaint alleging that it was malicious and without probable cause.

Ejectment. Tbe trial was by tbe court without a jury, and resulted in a finding for tbe plaintiffs. Various excej>-tions were taken by tbe defendant to findings and concl u-sions of tbe court. Other facts material to tbe decision will appear from tbe opinion. Tbe defendants appealed from a judgment on tbe finding. For tbe appellant it was contended, that tbe court erred in entering judgment for tbe plaintiffs before tbe issue on tbe claim for improvements was disposed of.

Tbe notice of tbe appeal, and tbe undertaking accompanying it, are eacb entitled as follows: “ County Court for Milwaukee County.

Action of trespass guare clausum, commenced in tbe police court of tbe city of 'Wausau. Tbe premises in question are situated outside of tbe limits of that city. Tbe trial before tbe justice resulted in a judgment against tbe defendant. On appeal to tbe circuit court, judgment was again rendered against him, from which be appealed to this court. No objection to the jurisdiction of tbe court was made by tbe defendant either before tbe police justice or in tbe circuit court.

The relator sued out from said circuit court a writ of certi-orari directed to L. GoldsPucleer, as justice »of the peace, and 8. B. Btanchfield, as clerk of the town of Pond du Lac, to bring up for review certain proceedings taken to lay out a proposed highway in said town. Each of the respondents made return to the writ; and the circuit court, after a hearing, affirmed the order of the commissioners appointed by the respondent Goldstucleer, in the matter of such highway.

Action for an alleged unlawful seizure and conversion by defendants of certain goods (mainly groceries), the property of the plaintiff.

Replevin, by Ojiarles and Sheldon Knapp against Adelaide White and Wm. White, Sen. The complaint avers that, on the 26th of March, 1813, plaintiffs purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale, made under an execution upon a judgment in their favor, in an action wherein they were plaintiffs and Wm.

Michael Mullms presented tbe will of Patrick Mullins, deceased, to tbe county court of said county, for probate; and tbe will was contested b j John Mullins, a son of tbe deceased. While tbe matter was pending in tbe county court, Michael Mullms was appointed special administrator of tbe estate.

* Action to restrain tbe defendant from constructing its road across plaintiff’s land. Held: as conclusion of law, that the proceedings and award of the commissioners were valid, and conclusive upon the plaintiff, and that plaintiff was entitled to receive ¡from defendant all his costs, less defendant’s costs incurred in putting in the supplemental answer, so far as related to the proceedings and award of the commissioners.

* On tlie 16th. of December, 1875, the relator filed bis petition for a writ of mandamus commanding Peter Doyle, as secretary of state of the state of Wisconsin, to revoke “ any authority, or license, or certificate” theretofore issued to the Continental Insurance Company of the city of New York, by such secretary of state, authorizing said company to transact any business in this state.

After tlie license of the Contmental Instvranee Company of the city of New York, to transact business in this state, had been revoked hy the secretary of state of Wisconsin, in accordance with the order made in the foregoing action of The State ex rel.

<p> Dismissal of Appeal. </p> <p>A motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, resisted on the ground that such stipulation was procured by fraud and duress, granted; no fraud or duress being shown.</p>

Xtacme County. Tbe following statement of tbe case' is taken from tbe opinion of Mr. Justice Cole herein, as originally prepared: “ Tbe action is ejectment, brought by tbe plaintiffs as tbe sole heirs-at-law of Margaretha Ginker, otherwise called M. Tbomasina Ginker, under whose will tbe defendants claim tbe property. Tbe material facts upon which tbe question as to tbe validity of the devise arises, are briefly these.

The following statement of tbe nature of tbe action was originally included in tbe opinion of Mr. Justice Cole: “ This is a bill filed by tbe executor for tbe construction of tbe will, and for directions in regard to tbe execution of tbe trust created by it. By bis will, tbe testator, after tbe payment of bis debts, ‘ gives and bequeaths to tbe Boman Oatbolie orphans of tbe diocese of La Crosse, state of Wisconsin, all bis real estate,’ describing it.

The following statement of the case ivas originally prepared by Mr. Justice Cole as a part of his opinion herein: “ This action was brought to recover three times the excess of freight above the rates prescribed by ch. 273, Laws of 1874, paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant company for the transportation of lumber.

<p>APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Fond du Lao County.</p>

Tbe defendant, Josephvne A. Wilner, was prosecuted in said court, on an information of tbe district attorney of said county, wbicb charged ber with having, on the 2d day of March, 1876, at said county, wilfully, feloniously, and of ber malice aforethought, billed and murdered John E. Garner; and a verdict was found against ber. Prom a judgment pursuant to tbe verdict, this appeal was taken.

The summons and complaint in this action were served upon defendant personally, on the 16th of February, 1876, in Waupaca county, where he resided. On the 8th of March, plaintiff took judgment as in default of an answer. On the 6tb of April, defendant moved to set aside the judgment, for leave to answer, and for a change -of venue. The papers used upon the motion, and which were served upon plaintiff, were, 1.

Jolmson, as the owner of a lot on East Water Street, in the city of Milwaukee, abutting on the Milwaukee river, brought this action to enjoin the issuing of a street commissioner’s certificate against the lot, for dredging done in the river and made chargeable by the charter upon the lot. .

Tbe plaintiff (incorporated under ch. 325, Laws of 1875) sought to recover from tbe defendants for tbe board and tuition of certain children. Tbe board of supervisors having disallowed the claim, an appeal was bad to tbe circuit court.

<p>Appeal to Supreme Court: Damages and double costs on appeal.</p> <p>1. Damages 'will not be awarded the respondent (under R. S., ch. 139, sec. 29, and Laws of 1860, ch. 264, sec. 37) upon affirmance of a judgment fully paid and satisfied before appeal taken; and this applies to a case where the plaintiff in foreclosure purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for the full amount of the judgment debt, including costs and interest, and the sale was confirmed before the appeal.</p> <p>2. Where there was no submission, and no appearance here for the appellant when the case was called for argument, but the court, on looking through the record, cannot say that the appeal was frivolous or in bad faith, it refuses double costs.</p>

Lau/ra Kneeland appealed to the circuit court from an order of the county court of Milwaukee county, admitting the will of Moses Burr Kneeland to probate. Notice of trial of the appeal in the circuit court, signed by the appellant in person, and by Rogers & Hover as her attorneys, was served on the attorneys of the proponents of the will, and of the executor, and a note of issue was filed with the clerk.

In proceedings supplementary to execution against the defendant, a court commissioner made an order directing one Joseph Klaat to pay over to plaintiff’s 'attorney a sum of money to be applied in satisfaction of the judgment. The order recited that no one had appeared to oppose the same, and that it appeared, from evidence taken, that Klaat was indebted to defendant in the sum ordered to be paid.

The complaint contains two counts. The first alleges “ that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff on an account for the work, labor and services of said plaintiff, its officers and servants, performed at the request of said defendant, between the fourth day of September, 1869, and the third day of October, 1872, in instructing the minor child of said defendant, to wit, Joseph Shanks, in various useful branches of learning, and for books, pajiers and other necessary…

Tbis action was brought under cb. 142 of tbe revised statutes, for tbe partition of lands owned in common by certain of tbe parties. After tbe usual judgment for partition pursuant to sec. 20 of said chapter, tbe reference directed in sec. 22 was made, and tbe referee reported that partition of tbe lands might easily be made without prejudice to tbe owners.

The action was upon a promissory note made by the defendants to the plaintiff, and was commenced in the circuit court by due personal service of the summons upon each of the defendants, January 20, 1876. Upon proof of such service and of the nonappearance of either defendant, the court, on the 9th of February, rendered judgment by default for the plaintiffs against the defendants, for the amount due on the note.

The plaintiff, being the owner of a house and lot in the town of West Pend, conveyed the same to defendants in exchange for eighty-six acres of land in Iowa, belonging to the defendant Sophia Bingenheimer, and gave defendants a note for $550 additional, secured by mortgage on the Iowa land. This action was brought to rescind the contract, and compel a reconveyance of the premises and a surrender and cancellation of the $550 note and mortgage.

The action was upon a policy of insurance issued by tbe defendant insurance company to tbe plaintiff, on a certain building, wdiich during, tbe life of tbe policy was destroyed by fire. Tbe complaint was in tbe usual form of complaints in such actions, alleging tbe contract of insurance, tbe loss and due proof thereof, and compliance by tbe insured with all of tbe conditions of tbe policy.

Tbe following statement of tbe case was originally prepared by Mr. Justice Cole as a part of bis opinion herein: “ Tbe action was upon a contract for the sale and delivery of wood, and the- material facts bearing upon tbe point to be considered are these: In October, 1872, tbe plaintiff agreed to sell 500 cords of good, sound, body hickory and rock-maple wood for $2.50 per cord; and 800 cords of good sound, body white oak, white maple and white ash wood for $2 per cord, to…

The action was against defendant as indorser of a promissory note made by one Finney.

Plaintiff filed a formal complaint, setting forth a note executed by defendants, with a warrant of attorney, dated August 23, 1873; a formal answer in behalf of defendants, confessing judgment; and an affidavit of the attorney by whom the answer was filed, stating merely that the amount due upon the note was $226.67, with interest at ten per cent, from its date, with ten per cent, attorney’s fees to be taxed as costs.

<p>JDxvoucb : Suit money.</p> <p>Oil the husband’s appeal from a judgment of divorce in favor of the wife (which appears to have given all the appellant’s property to the respondent by way of alimony), it appearing that the respondent had married again before tlie time for appeal from the judgment had expired, 'and that her second husband was still living, this court denies her motion f or an order on the appellant to pay her a sum sufficient to enable her to litigate the appeal.</p>

APPEAL Rom the Circuit Court for Wvrmebago County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cole in his opinion as originally prepared: “Sec. 6, ch. 42, Tay.

This action was brought to perpetually restrain the defendants from closing up or building upon a strip of land in the city of Eond du Lac, known as “ Darling Place.” A temporary injunction to that effect was granted. The defendants moved upon the complaint, answer, and certain affidavits, to dissolve such injunction. On the hearing, plaintiffs read additional affidavits in opposition to the motion.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff is owner of seven fully paid shares of defendant’s capital stock, each representing five hundred dollars; that said stock numbered one hundred and thirty-one shares of like amount, on none of which, except plaintiff’s and one other share, had there been paid in exceeding fifty per cent.; that, at a meeting of the board of directors, it was resolved that thereafter defendant’s capital stock should consist of one thousand…

Action to recover damages for tbe alleged conversion by defendants of an insurance policy for $10,000 on plaintiff’s life, issued by tbe Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, and assigned by tbe plaintiff to tbe defendant’s testatoi’, in bis life time, as security for a loan of money.

Action for a conversion. The complaint sets forth the granting to plaintiff, on the 19th of January, 1871, of letters of administration upon the estate of her deceased husband; and alleges that prior to that date certain moneys belonging to said estate came into her hands, which she loaned to defendants on the second day of January aforesaid, taking their joint and several promissory note for the amount, payable to her order; and that afterwards, while the whole amount…

Tbe complaint remains as it was left by the decision of this court, reported in 36 .Wis., 612, where a statement of its aver-ments will he found. It also states a cause of action for commissions as a vessel-broker. The answer is a general denial of all the material allegations of the complaint, except that defendant is the owner of the “ J. D. Sawyer,” the vessel therein mentioned.

Action upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant and another company, by which each company severally insured one George Winans against loss… Held: that the contract must be strictly enforced, and governed by the general rules of law applicable to all written agreements. Hi/nmcm v. Ins. Go., 36 Wis., 169; /Sawyer v. Ins. Go., 37 id., 518; Tebbetts v. Ins. Go., 1 Allen, 305; S. O., 3 id., 569. 2. It was error to admit proof that “B. IToyt” and “Northwestern Life Ins.

On tbe 18tb of March, 1874, tbe defendant Morse and one Wilson sold a steamboat, “ Tbe Diamond,” to tbe defendant McCall, talcing as security for part of tbe purchase money, a chattel mortgage for… Held: even by the federal court, to be maritime contracts. Leon v. Gal-cercm, 11 Wall., 185, 192; The Belfast, 7 id., 624, 645; The General Smith, 4 Wheat., 438.

A former appeal in tbis action is reported in 39 Wis., 167, where the facts are stated. After the cause was remanded to the circuit court for modification of the judgment, a motion for a change of venue on account of tbe prejudice of tbe judge, was made by tbe defendant, and denied.

Trover, for twenty-three sheep of the alleged value of $150, and twenty-three fleeces of wool of the alleged value of $50, the property of the plaintiff, which, the complaint charges, was wrongfully converted by the defendant on or about November 1,1875. The plaintiff lost his sheep in October, 1874. It is not claimed that they came wrongfully to the possession of the defendant. The testimony and rulings of the court on the trial are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

APPEAR from tbo Circuit Court for Marquette County. Action upon the bond of a town treasurer, against the principal and sureties.

Action to have the defendant adjudged to execute a release of a mortgage upon ten acres of land described in the complaint.

Action to recover certain laud in Manitowoc county, of which the defendant is in possession. Both parties claim title to the land under one William Bach, Plaintiff derives his title as follows: Berliner & Bruno recovered a judgment against Bach, which was duly docketed in the circuit court for Manitowoc county, November 29, 1858.

du Lao County. The action was brought in 1873 to foreclose a mortgage executed by Spafford to Sewell in 1852, to secure the payment of a note of even date with the mortgage, due in two years. The complaint avers that the mortgaged premises have been conveyed to the defendant Josephine L. Bannister by mesne conveyances from the mortgagor, and that she is the owner thereof subject to the mortgage.

Tbe action is upon an award. Tbe plaintiff brought an action against tbe defendant city, and one Perkins, to recover damages for personal inj uries alleged to bave been received by bim by reason of a certain obstruction to a public street in said city, to wit, a “ Perkins Patent Shutter,” which fell upon him in front of tbe store of tbe said Perkins. It seems that be claimed that both defendants in that action were liable for such injuries.

An agreement was entered into between one Geo. C. Smith and the plaintiff, dated November 6, 1871, whereby Smith, in consideration of $2 per acre, agreed to sell and did sell to the plaintiff an undivided one-half of about 24,000 acres of land lying in Wisconsin, “ being the third acceptance on the United States military road commencing at Fort Howard and running northwest.” The contract recited that the title to said lands was in litigation, and the sale was declared to be…

Eeplevin, for tools and implements constituting a hook-bindery. It appears that on November 2, 1874, the plaintiff and one Weber were partners in managing the bookbindery, and on that day Weber executed and delivered to plaintiff a chattel mortgage upon the property in question, for $300, in the usual form, conditioned for the faithful performance of an agreement made by said parties in the month of July preceding.

The action first above named was for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and the complaint was in the usual form, duly verified. Itanium and Edgerton, judgment creditors of the mortgagor, served separate verified answers to the complaint, on information and belief. The other defendants made default.

IE'FOKMATIOU for a Writ of Injunction. The first clause of sec. 1, ch. 231 of 1876, declares that ch. 333 of 1875 “is hereby amended so as to read as follows,” etc. The first four sections of the act as amended, are as follows: “ Sec. 1.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cole, in his opinion herein as originally prepared : “ This is an action brought for the dissolution of a partnership, on the ground that there was such a disagreement between the partners that it was impracticable to carry on the business of the firm. The plaintiff alleges, in the complaint, that the defendant is responsible for this disagreement which necessitates a dissolution of the partnership.

Tbe pleadings in this cause, and its bistory to tbe time of trial, sufficiently appear in tbe reports of tbe decisions on two former appeals, found in 38 Wis., 107 and 114. On tbe trial, tbe plaintiffs read in evidence three bonds like those described in tbe complaint, except that tbe firm of Aldrich, Smith & Co. was not named as obligee in either of said bonds, as alleged in tbe complaint; but in one of them Wm. Aldrich, in another Wm.

APPEAL Rom the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action for a libel. The complaint contains, first, certain averments as to the plaintiff’s professional character and practice as an attorney-at-law, the extent of his acquaintance in this state, and particularly in the city of Milwaukee, and his appointment by the justices of this court as one of the revisers of the statutes of this state.

Foreclosure of a mortgage executed by one Kaehler in August, and recorded in September, 1873. Mann and others, impleaded with Kaehler, claimed interests in the mortgaged lands under a judgment in favor of one Scheunert against Kaehler, rendered in the county court of Milwaukee county, December 1, 1870. The issue raised by the pleadings was, whether Scheunert’s judgment was docketed, so as to create a lien upon the lands in question, paramount to that of plaintiff’s mortgage.

This action, upon express contract, for a money judgment only, was commenced by attachment of property; and, an affidavit of defendant’s nonresidence, etc., having been filed, an order was made December 17, 1875, in the usual form, for service by publication, etc. Proof was afterwards filed of personal service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant, made at Elizabeth, N. J., December 29,1875.

In October, .1874, tbe circuit court rendered a judgment for a divorce in an action between tbe plaintiff, Mrs. Sage, and her husband, A.W. Sage, and adjudged that said A.W. Sage pay to tbe plaintiff, for the support of their minor children (the custody of whom was given to her), one hundred and twenty dollars per annum, payable in quarterly installments on the first days of November, February, May and August in each year.

Action to quiet title to a lot of land in the city of Boscobel. It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff has the legal title to such lot, under certain conveyances from one Robert Gray, and is in possession thereof, and that the defendant unjustly claims title thereto.

Action for the value of plaintiff’s goods destroyed by fire while stored by defendant as a warehouseman, in its warehouse at Boscobel in this state. The complaint alleged, and the answer denied, that such destruction was caused by defendant’s negligence. The error for which the judgment was reversed will sufficiently appear from the opinion. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment; and defendant appealed. who cited 1 Greenl. Ev., § 440, and People v. Eastwood, 14 N. Y., 562.

Tbe opinion of Mr. Justice Cole herein, as originally prepared, tbus stated tbe facts: “ Tbis action was brought to recover the value of goods destroyed by tbe burning of tbe defendant’s depot at Boscobel.

This action (brought in the circuit court for Grant county) was for a loss of plaintiff’s goods in consequence of the same fire mentioned in the foregoing case; such goods being then in defendant’s warehouse at Boscobel.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. By direction of tbe court, on tbe trial, tbe jury returned answers to several specific questions of fact. Tbe pleadings, evidence and special verdict disclose tbe following facts : Tbe plaintiff was employed by tbe defendant company to wort on a pile-driver. He was one of a number of men so employed, all of wbom were under tbe direction of a foreman selected by tbe company.

This action was commenced in October, 1871. The complaint avers, in substance, that plaintiff is owner in fee, entitled to the possession, and in actual possession, of a certain described quarter section of land; and that defendants, on the 31st day of October, 1871, broke and entered upon the premises, and attempted to take possession thereof, and committed damage thereon to the amount of $100.

Action for tbe alleged conversion by defendant of an iron safe of tbe value of three hundred dollars, tbe property of tbe plaintiffs. Tbe complaint is in tbe usual form, merely charging such conversion, without stating tbe particulars thereof. Tbe answer is a general denial.

Ejectment, for an undivided interest in a certain farm in Washington county, being the same land the title to which was involved in the case of Wiem&r v. Zaun, 39 Wis., 188. In November, 1847, Rosina Ahnert died seized of said land in fee, her husband, Johann Gottlieb Ahnert, and six minor children, of whom plaintiff was one, surviving her.

Replevin. Plaintiff claimed title to the property by virtue of a levy made by him thereon, under a writ of attachment issued from a justice’s court of the city of Fond du Lac. On the trial he testified, against defendant’s objection, that he w'as a policeman of said city, and acted as such in making the alleged levy. Excepting this, no evidence of his official title or appointment was presented.

The complaint alleges that on September 1, 1869, the parties entered into a copartnership as follows: “Articles of agreement made and entered into this first day of September, 1869, by and between D. C. Fairbank, Jerry Leary, Fred.

Trespass, by tbe owner of a lot in tbe city of Manitowoc, for tbe occupation and use by tbe defendant company, without bis consent, of tbe public highway adjoining bis premises, for its road-bed and track.

The original complaint in this action will be fonnd in 37 Wis., 317, where an order sustaining a'demurrer to such complaint was affirmed by this court.

Action upon a sealed promissory note for one hundred dollars, dated September 1, 1860, signed by the defendant’s testator, payable to the plaintiff or bearer, and due by its terms ten years from date, with interest after one year payable in advance.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff contracted with defendants for the purchase from the latter of a bureau, for the agreed price of $22, and that said sum has been paid, but defendants have refused to deliver the bureau on demand. Judgment is ashed for the amount paid, with costs. The answer alleges that the bureau was delivered in pursuance of the contract, and that it was to be paid for in logs, which have been delivered and accepted in payment.

At the annual session of the defendant board of supervisors in 1874, and on the third day of such session, the plaintiff filed with the clerk of such board three schedules of tax certificates, with the following caption to each: “List of illegal tax .certificates presented by B. B. Baton.” To each list was appended a verification in due form.

Trespass qua/re clausum fregit. The complaint alleges that defendants, with force and arms, broke and entered the plaintiffs’ close in the town of Mineral Point, Iowa county, and forcibly tore down the fence of the plaintiffs there situate, and threatened to tear the same down whenever and as fast as the plaintiffs should replace it.

Action to recover for the support of a pauper. The com! plaint, after stating that each, of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, is an organized town in said county, alleges “ that the defendant .... is indebted to the plaintiff.... in the sum of $367.05, over and above all legal setoffs, for and on account of services rendered, provisions and medicines furnished, and medical attendance to and upon one William Chapman, during the year 1874; that said “William Chapman,…