Volume 57 — Wisconsin Reports

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The circuit court directed the jury to assess the plaintiffs damages at $100, and from a judgment accordingly in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This is an action to recover back $359.04, alleged to have been illegally assessed in the year 1877, and illegally exacted and collected from the plaintiff by the defendant, March 1, 1878, with interest from that date.

Action to recover for an injury to the premises of the plaintiff abutting upon Washington street in the defendant city, caused by a change in the grade of said street alleged to have been 'wholly unauthorized by law. The answer was a general denial. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony a motion .for a nonsuit was denied. The motion was renewed after all the evidence was in, and was again denied.

. The plaintiff, being a creditor of the estate of Darby Clark, deceased, brought this action in behalf of all the creditors of such estate, pursuant to sec. 3825, R. S., to reach and subject to sale, for the payment of debts against the estate, eighty acres of land which Darby Clark in his life-time conveyed to the defendant. No question arises on the pleadings.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TaxloR: “ This action was brought to recover the value of certain cedar trees and cedar ties wrongfully and unlawfully taken from the plaintiff’s land.

Action to recover a balance due upon an account for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, and for services rendered in fitting up and repairing machinery, etc., for a steam saw-mill'. A bill of items was attached to the complaint.

Information charging the defendants jointly with the murder of one Frank G-arrity, on May 22, 1881. The defendants pleaded not guilty. At the trial L. P. Wether by appeared as one of the attorneys for the state. The defendants asked leave of the court to inquire of him whether he was employed by the district attorney or by private individuals, but the court refused to grant the request.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoeay: “ The plaintiffs are the daughters, only heirs at law, and legal representatives of John Wiskow, who is claimed to have died January 12, 1881. This action is upon two fire insurance policies issued by the defendant to him in his lifetime, upon the buildings constituting his homestead, for the sum of $1,150.

The case is stated in the opinion. Upon the issue of not guilty, the following instruction was asked on behalf of the defendant, but was refused by the court: “ If the jury find that the killing of Dr. Hogle by the defendant was done by the perpetration of an act imminently dangerous to others, and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, without any premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being, the jury may find the…

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Iowa County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This case was here upon a former appeal from a judgment on the merits entered in the circuit court for Iowa county. 52 Wis., 55Y. On that appeal the judgment was reversed, and the cause-was remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. Page 5Y1.

' the Circuit Court for Iowa County. The' substance of the complaint is stated in the opinion. The defendants demurred thereto generally, and on the ground that there was a defect of parties defendant, and appealed from an order overruling the demurrer. They contended, inter alia, that the action should have been brought against the town.

The appellant, II. C. Heath, was the guardian of Lara E. Thurston, a minor. On the petition of his ward, his appointment as such guardian was revoked by the county court, and he afterwards rendered to that court his final account of his guardianship.

Action for an injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a defective sidewalk' in the village of Black River Falls: It is alleged in the complaint “ that the defendant is now and for upwards of ten years last past has been a body corporate and politic, organized under the provisions of ch. 191, P. & L. Laws of 18Y1, entitled ‘ An act to amend ch. 49, P. & L. Laws of 1866, entitled “ An act to ■ incorporate the village of Black River Falls” ’ and that…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This action was brought in justice’s court to recover six ■cords of red oak stave bolts, and damages for the detention of the same.

On the 28th of September, 1881, judgment was entered against the defendant, without action, upon five promissory notes, by virtue of a warrant of attorney; and execution tbereon was issued on the same day. The substance of the notes, the form of the warrant of attorney, and other facts will appear from the opinion by Mr. Justice OrtoN, infra.. The affidavit annexed to the complaint was as follows: “ Ourtis IT.

The action was commenced April 27, 1880, to cancel certificates of sale of the lands described in the complaint for the unpaid taxes of 1876, and to restrain the defendant, the county clerk, from issuing tax deeds pursuant to such, certificates.

A petition was presented to the board of supervisors of Iola to alter a highway in that town. The board met at the time and place appointed for the purpose of deciding the application, and denied it. The present appellant, Neis O. Nelson, thereupon took an appeal from such determination, and such proceedings were had therein that commissioners were appointed to review the action of the supervisors.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This case was here upon a former appeal. 46 Wis., 138. The plaintiff owned seven or eight hundred thousand feet of lumber, in piles, situated near the planing mill of one E. M. Copp. The defendant was the owner and in the use and occupation of a steam shingle mill, run and operated by the defendant by means of steam generated by fire,— the fire, boilers, engine, and smoke-stack being located in and upon said steam mill.

<p>APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Lincoln County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion. The defendant appealed from the judgment.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatlob : “ The plaintiff brought her action to recover the amount claimed to be due to her upon two promissory notes made by the defendant and delivered to plaintiff, payable to her or her order. The execution and delivery of the ¿otes are admitted by the answer.

Action to recover the sum of $100 which it is alleged the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff for his services in selling her land. The answer, in addition to a general denial, alleged that in the matter of the sale of the land the plaintiff had been employed as the agent of the purchaser; A jury having been waived the cause was tried by the court. At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony a motion for a non-suit was denied.

Action for a trespass upon the plaintiff’s land* and the cutting and carrying away of a large quantity of pine timber therefrom. The answer, besides a general denial, alleged that the timber was the property of John Edwards and Thos. B. Scott, and that the defendant cut and carried it away by virtue of a license from -them.

<p>Counties: Sale oe Chattels. (1) Sow property of county may be purchased. (3) Case stated.</p> <p>1. The property of a county can be purchased only through the board of supervisors, except in cases where some other body or officer is authorized to make the sale.</p> <p>2. A county board adopted a resolution that certain railroad stock “ is hereby sold to H. for the sum of $1,350,” and a second resolution appropriating “the proceeds of the sale” to several towns. H. immediately drew his check for $1,350, payable to the county clerk, and delivered it to him at the office of H., a short distance from the place of meeting of the board. Shortly after such delivery, and on the same day, the board adopted a resolution rescinding “ the order selling the stock.” There was no evidence of any previous offer by H. to the county board to purchase the stock, or that the board ever directed the clerk to accept the check or receive any money from TI. in payment therefor, or that H. notified the board in any way, after the adoption of the first resolution, that he accepted the terms of the sale. Held:</p> <p>(1) There was no perfected agreement of sale, and the board might withdraw the offer made by its first resolution.</p> <p>(2) It appearing that the county clerk still holds the money received by him on the check given by H., the assignee of the latter has no claim on the county therefor.</p>

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

- Action for an accounting and adjustment of a partnership business. In November, 1866, the parties entered into a co-partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business of manufacturing doors, sash, blinds, and other articles,— such partnership to commence January 1, 1867, and to continue five years. Each partner was to furnish $5,000 of capital, and profits and losses were to be shared equally between them.

Oroix County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. Tbe entry in tbe books therein referred to, made by Stephens, was as follows: “New EiohmoND, Eeb. 23, 1880. Peter Scherer and fm.

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. The defendants appealed from a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff. to the point that there can be no constructive notice in the recording or filing of an instrument executed by a stranger to the title, cited: Wade on Notice, secs. 205, 213, 223; Crockett v. Maguire, 10 Mo., 3é; Leiby v. Wolf, 10 Ohio, 83; Single v. Phelgos, 20 Wis., 399.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff for many years has been and now is in possession of certain premises, under a contract for the sale thereof to him; that a stream of water has for many years extended and flowed across such premises; that the railroad of the defendant, built by one of its predecessors, was constructed in such a way as to divert said stream from its natural course, and to set back the waters thereof and cause them to overflow the…

In 1851 Nicholas Smith died testate in the city of Madison, leaving surviving him his widow, who is the present appellant, and their six children, to whom he devised certain real estate in Madison, of which he died seized. Eliza Jane Smith was their oldest child, and at the time of her father’s death was about eleven years of age. In 1858 Eliza Jane intermarried with one Benedict Israel.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “ This action was brought by the respondents, as trustees of Margaret Livesley, wife of Samuel Livesley, to reform and foreclose a mortgage given by Samuel Livesley to W. I. Garver, personally, and before he was appointed one of the trustees of said Margaret Livesley, to secure the payment of the sum of $500 and interest, which bears date May 20, 1872.

Action to recover the amount of a commission agreed to be paid for the finding of a purchaser for certain lands in towns 32 and 33 in Taylor county, Wisconsin. The agreement under which the plaintiff claims was contained in the following letters: “ ShawaNO, Wis., June 25, 1881. “John O’CoTmor, Esq. — Dear Sir: Your favor of the 22d inst. is just at hand. Herewith find list of lands in towns 32 and 33, R. 4, west, Taylor Co., Wis.

The plaintiff entered the employment of the defendants (who were partners) as their book-keeper, May 17, 1880, and was by them discharged from such employment, June 29, 1880. The agreed consideration for such services was $75 per month, and the plaintiff was paid at that rate to the date of his discharge. He claims that the defendants employed him to serve until January 1, 1881, and that they discharged him wrongfully and without any just cause.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatloe: “ The respondent brought its action against the appellant and P. H. McLean upon, an instrument in writing, of which the following is a copy: “ ‘ $450.00 W. O. No. 12409. Alloubz, September 20,1878. “ ‘ On or before the 1st day of December, 1879, for value received, we, the undersigned, of the town of Allouez, county of Brown, state of Wisconsin, promise to pay to the order of the Johnston.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This is an action of ejectment brought by the original owner against the defendant, who was in possession under a tax deed of three forties, or one hundred and twenty acres, of land lying in one body.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ghrpjpewa County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This is an action by husband and wife to recover damages sustained from the breaking of an arm of the wife, May 30, 1881, by reason of an alleged defective sidewalk in Madison.

<p>Sale of Land on Execution. (1) Publication of notice. (2) Plaintiff not a bona fide purchaser.</p> <p>1. Under sec. 2993, R. S., the first publication of the notice of the sale of real estate upon execution must be full six weeks (forty-two days) before the date of the sale. Where the fii'st publication was on June 24th, the last publication on July 29th, and the sale took place August 2d, the notice was insufficient and the sale void.</p> <p>2. When the plaintiff in the judgment and execution purchases at aD execution sale he is presumed to have notice of all defects in the record and proceedings, and will not be protected as a dona fi.de purchaser if the notice of the sale was insufficient.</p>

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County;</p> <p>The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.</p>

The plaintiffs were the owners of certain tracts of timbered lands in Door county, Wisconsin, and the defendants owned certain lots in Cook county, Illinois. In 1874 the parties entered into two contracts, in writing, for an exchange of the lands and lots so owned by them, respectively, on the terms and conditions specified in such contracts.

The opinion sufficiently states the case. The plaintiff appealed from an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.

Tbe case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The plaintiffs obtained judgment of strict foreclosure of a land contract, upon which the defendants had paid $900.

The defendant company petitioned the circuit court to appoint commissioners to appraise the damages to the owners by reason of the taking by the company of a certain-parcel of land in the city of Appleton for the uses and purposes of its railway. The petition stated that the plaintiff George W. Spaulding and one Peter E. Dane claimed a leasehold interest in a portion of the premises sought to be condemned.

The defendant company located its line of railroad across lands of the plaintiff, and on its petition commissioners were duly appointed to appraise the damages resulting therefrom. The petition states that the plaintiff is the owner of the land, and that one E. Bowen has, or claims to have, a mortgage thereon. The commissioners assessed the value of the land taken at $65, and the damages by the reason of the taking thereof at $50.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylok: “ The plaintiff brought her action to recover damages for unlawfully, wilfully, and with force of arms breaking and entering into and upon her premises, and then and there taking down a fence belonging to her and inclosing her premises; alleging that, by reason of such unlawful entry of the defendant and tearing down the fence of the plaintiff, one of the plaintiff’s cows, then upon her premises, got out and strayed from her…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassóday: “ This was an action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of being bitten on the left leg by a (¡log, alleged to belong to and 'kept by the defendant, and by him wrongfully and negligently suffered to ■ be at large, knowing him to be of a ferocious and mischievous disposition, and accustomed to bite mankind, and which bite is alleged to have caused the plaintiff great pain and fright; and also for…

On the 22d day of August, 1880, Margaret Farmer died, testate, at the village of Brodhead in Green county. A will executed by her and bearing date June 4,1818, was presented for probate to the county court of said county, by Burr Sprague, who was named therein as executor.

The defendant railroad company located its line of railway through lands of the plaintiff. The lands are in two quarter sections, but constitute a single tract. Condemnation proceedings were instituted, which resulted in a report by the commissioners appointed therein, in which the compensation awarded to the plaintiff in respect to each quarter section is stated separately in the form of two awards.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor:, “ This is a proceeding under the statute to take a part, of a tract of land situated in the village of Waukesha, belonging to Elizabeth J. Watson, Ellen D. Monteith, Hattie L. Gove, and Mattie E. Cole, heirs of William White, deceased, for the track of the respondent’s railway through said village, and to assess the damages which the said company ought to pay for taking the same.

Action to recover the purchase price of a horse alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant. The facts appear from the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed. „

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ On June 29,1882, the plaintiffs, as tenants in common of a farm of 160 acres in the town of Yernon, Waukesha county, obtained a preliminary injunction upon their verified complaint, alleging, in effect, that on June 15, 1882, and subsequently, the defendants, claiming and assuming to act as the supervisors of said town and of the town of Wauke-sha, entered upon said farm without authority, and wrongfully commenced and…

<p>ERROR to the Municipal Court of Milwaukee County.</p> <p>The plaintiffs in error were convicted of larceny. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. argued, inter alia, that the circuit court should not have set aside the entire judgment of distribution embracing, as it did, several distinct adjudications in which various beneficiaries were interested, and none of which were questioned in any tribunal, except (1) the distribution of the wool under the residuary clause, and (2) the discharge of the executor. As to the first point the. county court was affirmed by both appellate tribunals.

The action is to enforce a lien upon a certain house, and the interest of the defendant husband in the lot upon which the same is situated, for the price of certain materials furnished and work done by the plaintiff, in and about the erection of such house. The plaintiff claims that there is due him $645.70. The defendants answered, interposing several counterclaims.

The appeal is from an order denying the plaintiff’s application for a change of venue on the ground of the prejudice of the judge. The material part of the affidavit upon which such application was based will be found in the opinion. They cited: Western Bcmk v. Tollman, 15 Wis., 93: E. S., sec. 2637, snbd. 10, 11; Upper Miss. Trans. Co. v. Whittaker, 16 Wis., 220; Carr v. Bank, 18 id., 255; 8. O., 19 id., 272; Schroicdenbeck v. Ins. Co., 15 id., 633; Market Mat.

Action to recover a balance of $75.56 alleged to be due upon a sale of paper stock. The answer does not deny any of the allegations of the complaint, but alleges, by way of counterclaim, breaches of warranties as to the quality of the stock. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. A sufficient statement of the evidence will be found in the opinion. From a judgment in' favor of the defendants for $75 and costs, the plaintiffs appealed.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassodat: “ This action was brought to determine the interest of the plainiff in the undivided one half of an abstract under a written instrument hereinafter set forth, and to compel the defendant Humphrey to account for and pay over to the plaintiff a share of the use and profits thereof, and in default thereof that said half of the abstract be sold and the plaintiff paid out of the proceeds thereof, and for general relief.

The case is stated iu the opinion. To the point that the order reviewing taxation of costs was not ap-pealable, they cited: Mollugh v. O. c& H. W. Raikoay Co., 41 Wis., 79, 82; Ernst v. Steamer Brooklyn, 24 id., 616.

This is an action to recover commissions on sales of wood alleged to have been made by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request. The plaintiff resides at Racine, in this state, and the defendant resides in Michigan.' In 1881 the defendant desired to sell about 1,000 cords of wood, and under date of February 6th in that year wrote to the plaintiff as follows: “At what price can you sell 600 cords of beech and 250 cords of maple, to be delivered in May.

The case is stated iu the opinion. 1. By the contract of July 20, 1880, the subscription of the town was conditioned that the defendant railway company should, by the use of its capital stock and its credit, build a certain road. When this road was built, then the company would take the bonds, and the town would take the stock, which would give it an interest in the road.

<p>CRIMINAL Law and Practice. (1) Reading medical books in evidence or on argument. (2) Murder or manslaughter9</p> <p>1. Medical books cannot be introduced in evidence, nor can an expert •witness be permitted to testify as to statements made therein. And it is equally inadmissible to permit the reading of such books to the jury by counsel.</p> <p>3. Where the nature of an assault is such that if death accidentally ensued, the killing would be murder at the common law, it would be manslaughter in the first degree under the statute (R. S., sec. 4346), unless such assault was accompanied with an actual design to do some great bodily harm, or to commit some one of the crimes mentioned in sec. 4385, R. S., so that such assault would be a felony.</p>

Action to recover possession of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 19, township 26 north, range 5 east, in Marathon county. The substance of the complaint is stated, in the opinion. The patent to the defendant’s grantor is alleged to have been issued by the state on the 12th of May, 1880. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the action was not commenced within the time limited by ch. 22, Laws of 1861.

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. There was a verdict for the defendant, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appealed.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR : “ This action was brought to recover from the defendant a certain sum of money which the plaintiff had theretofore paid to satisfy a judgment rendered in favor of the said defendant and one George McMillen, as plaintiffs, against one Gregory Witt, Sr., on or about the 20th of January, 18'Tl.

The appellants, Ellen Burt — formerly Fitzgerald — and Sarah Fitzgerald, and the deceased wife of the appellant Charles E. Crain, to wit, Mary Crain, formerly Eitzgerald, were the only surviving children and heirs at law of John Eitzgerald at the time of his decease, which occurred in 1855. His widow also survived him. Eitzgerald was a resident of Milwaukee county, and owned eighty acres of land in that county at the.time of his death. He died intestate.

The respondent, who was summoned as garnishee of the defendant Scheiderer, answered alleging that he had no property or. effects of Scheiderer except under and by virtue of an assignment made for the benefit of creditors. The plaintiff took issue upon the answer, and, after hearing the evidence, the court made its findings of fact and conclusions of law and rendered judgment discharging the garnishee. Erom that judgment the plaintiff appealed.

The case is stated in the opinion. The defendants appealed from the order denying, for want of prosecution, their motion to set aside the judgment. 1. The mortgage sought to be reformed and foreclosed is defective, and in equity stands on the same footing as an ex-ecutory contract to mortgage. Petesehv.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “On February 17, 1881, Frederick Gunther made a voluntary assignment of all his property, both real and personal, for the benefit of his creditors, to Edwin Upson. The assignment was properly executed, certified, and filed, and Upson accepted the trust and gave the requisite bond.

Action to recover moneys collected by the defendant as attorney for the plaintiff. The answer alleges payment. The facts are stated in the opinion. The court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered on such verdict the defendant appealed. On the question of estoppel they cited: Continental Banlc v. National Banlc, 50 N. Y., 575; Oasco Bank v. Keene, 53 Me., 103; Blavr v. Wait, 69 N. Y., 114; Racine Oo.

APPEAL, from the County Court of MilwauJcee County, . The action is upon a promissory note made by the defendr ant to the plaintiff’s intestate for $6,322.80 and interest, dated July 1, 1875, and payable by its terms one year from date. The complaint is in the usual form, and .alleges the death of Mr. Carpenter, intestate, Eebruary 24,1881, and the due appointment and qualification of the plaintiff as admin-istratrix of his estate on the 3d of May next ensuing.

The case is sufficiently stated in the brief of counsel for the appellant, as follows: “Upon a former appeal in this case the court held the complaint sufficient on demurrer. 51 Wis., 618.

Action to recover damages for a delay in the delivery of a telegram. The blank used by the plaintiffs in sending the message was in the following form: “The WesterN Unioh Telegraph CompaNV. “half RATE MESSAGE. “ The business of telegraphing is liable to errors and delays, arising from causes which cannot at all times be guarded against, including, sometimes, negligence of servants and agents whom it is necessary to employ.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Oassoday : “ This is an action to recover $400 for 2,000 loads of sand, at and for an agreed price of twenty cents a load, alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff, to the defendant.

Action for libel. The cause was before this court on former appeals and is reported in 47 Wis., 659, and 54 Wis., 220.

The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant Emma A. Iiewitt to one Callie McDonald (and by her assigned to the plaintiff) on twenty-three lots in certain additions to the city of Milwaukee. The mortgage was given to secure the payment of the promissory note of Mrs. Hewitt to Mrs. McDonald for $1,400. The complaint contains the averments usual in foreclosure actions. The defendant Jenny M.. Keehn alone answered the complaint.

<p>Justices’ Courts. Right of way over land: pleading: evidence.</p> <p>A right of way, either public or private, is an interest inland, and its existence cannot be tried in a justice’s court. One who relies upon such a right as a defense to an action of trespass commenced in justice’s court must plead the same specially and tender the bond required by sec. 3620, R. S.; otherwise he waives such defense, and the instrument which grants such right is inadmissible even to prove his actual possession of the locus in quo.</p>

The complaint alleges the death of John Shea, on October 6,1880, the appointment of the plaintiff as his administrator, and that the defendants, as copartners,-had for many years last past, and were still, using and occupying lot 6, in the south half of block 87, in the Fourth ward of the city of Milwaukee, and the brick building and structures thereon, and then proceeds as follows: “ That said block lies on the east side of West Water street, between Fowler street on the…

Action for the unlawful conversion of a stock of liquors and other personal property alleged to be the sole and separate property of the plaintiff, a married woman, and to have been received by her in payment of- a bona fide debt due to her in her own right from her husband.

Action to recover the sum of $5',015.55, alleged to be due to the plaintiff upon a contract for sprinkling streets in the Seventh ward of the defendant city, from May 27 to November 15, 1881. The answer denies that the plaintiff performed the contract according to its provisions, alleging, among other things, that by the terms of the contract he should ' have used six teams and sprinkling wagons in the work, and that, in fact, he used but five.

The defendant city, on proper proceedings, duly obtained condemnation to the public use of lot 5, block 165, in the Second ward of said city, and thereupon the sum of $6,250 was duly and regularly awarded to the owner as compensation therefor. The legal title to lot 5 was in the defendant Louise Fenske.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob : “This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The ground of demurrer was that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens. The facts sufficiently appear from the- opinion. The defendant appealed from orders of reference made by the court on its own motion.

<p>APPEAL from the County Court of Mihoaukee County.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment against him for the costs of the action.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ Application was made to the county court of Milwaukee county, upon the petition of Nicholas Hoffmann, reciting, in effect, that he was the uncle of Jacob Hoffmann and that a guardian ought to be appointed for the latter on the ground that he was about to become possessed of over $10,000, and was mentally incompetent to have the charge and management of his property, or comprehend the meaning of money or property, or able to…