Volume 59 — Wisconsin Reports

This action Was brought to recover the consideration paid by plaintiff for a certain note and mortgage which he had theretofore purchased of the defendant. It came to this court on an appeal from a judgment for the defendant, entered pursuant to a ruling of the circuit court sustaining a demurrer ore teniis to the complaint. It was held on that appeal that the complaint states a cause of action, and the judgment was reversed. 54 Wis., 395.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County.</p> <p>The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.</p>

On the petition of William Milburn a writ of habeas corpus issued out of this court, returnable November 20, 1883. The writ is directed to Robert Scott, sheriff of the county of La Crosse, in the state of Wisconsin.

<p>Res adjudicata — Right of separate appeal.</p> <p>The conflicting claims of F. and K. to the sum awarded for lands condemned to public use .by a city were litigated in a suit to which the city was a party, and the money was adjudged to be paid to K. Upon an appeal by the city, to which F. was made a party, the judgment was affirmed. Held, that the right of K. to the money was res adjudieata as to all the parties, and a subsequent appeal by F. from the judgment is dismissed,</p>

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. To the point that on certiora/ri only jurisdictional questions will be considered, they cited, besides the cases cited in the opinion: Tallmadge v. Potter, 12 Wis., 317; Owen v. State, 27 id., 456; Taylor v. Wilkinson, 22 id., 40; Milwaukee Iron Oo. v. ScTmbel, 29 id., 444; State v. Huek, id., 202; Odilon v. Sternberg, 38 id., 539; Hedly v. Kneelcmd, 48 id., 497.

'APPEAL from, the Circuit Court for OzcmJcee County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR : “ This is an appeal from a final order of the circuit court of Ozaukee county, made in said action, punishing Thomas Halpin and eleven others for a contempt of court in violating an injunctional order made in said action. The proceedings for contempt were had under ch. 150, R. S. 18Y8, and the order was made under secs..3489 and 3490, R. S. 18Y8.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The plaintiff’s house and lot was upon the south side of Main street, and fronted upon it. Adjoining his lot on the east, was the house and lot of one Carrington, and between his and Fond du Lac street, running northerly and southerly across Main street, was the house and lot of one Hatcher.

Action for the purchase price of agricultural machinery sold by the plaintiff corporation to the defendant between February 12 and August 13, 1877, and between July 9 and September 6, 1878. The answer contains a counterclaim for moneys paid to the plaintiff and for its use, for interest on advance payments, and for services rendered, in an amount exceeding that claimed in the complaint. The cause was tried by a referee.

By permission of the owner of the fee,. the plaintiffs erected a shed partly within the limits of a public highway in the town of Olyman, Dodge county. The structure was on the side of the highway, entirely outside the traveled portion thereof, and did not interfere with the use of the highway by the public. It was erected opposite a church which the plaintiffs attended, for the purpose of housing their teams during service.

<p>ERROR to the Circuit Court for Waupaca County.</p>

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

The action was brought by John lenhard, Mary Spihs, and Frederick, Lenhard, Jr., the heirs at law of Eredericka Lenhard, deceased, against Frederick Lenhard, Sr. and Dora Lenhard, his wife, William Ebert and Sophia Ebert, his wife, G. II. Schmidt, George Ebling, and Louis Bohne.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justi«e Cassoday: “This is an action to recover the amount of moneys expended by the plaintiff in repairing a certain bridge in a highway, which, it is alleged, the defendants were in duty bound to keep and maintain.

The complaint contains two counts, for two assaults and batteries committed on the same day — one at Peter Boden’s, and the other at Henry G-lantz’s, in the village of West Bend. The defendant Stroebel, who was the principal actor, made default. The other three defendants answered a general denial. The evidence given on the trial will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

This action was brought to set aside a conveyance of real estate and an assignment of a mortgage, executed by the plaintiff to the defendant’s intestate, Mrs. Richards, on the alleged ground that the same were procured by the fraudulent conduct and representations of Mrs. Richards in respect to the condition and value of th'e property conveyed by her to the plaintiff as the consideration therefor. The defendant denies the fraud.

' APPEAL from the County Court of Dodge County. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment of nonsuit. The facts are stated in the opinion.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “This action was brought upon a policy of insurance against fire, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for $300 on his dwelling-house, $40 on his furniture, and $60 on his beds, clothes, and linen.

The defendant appealed from an order changing the place of trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. To the point that the statute is imperative and the court has no discretion but to grant the application when properly made, he cited: Seehawer v. Milwaukee, 39 Wis., 409; Bachrnann v. Milwaukee, 47 id., 435.

Action for slander. The slanderous words alleged in the complaint to have been spoken by the defendant to the plaintiff were: “You area damn thief; you broke open a granary last fall and stole my wheat.” In his answer, after a general denial, the defendant alleges by way of mitigation that if he spoke the words charged he did so without malice, and in the heat of passion caused by the fact that the plaintiff, just before he uttered them, had called him a 'bastard.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.</p>

Tbe facts are stated in the opinion. From a judgment ip favor of the plaintiff the defendant appealed. Besides the cases cited in the opinion, they cited Millereelc Township v. Reed, 29 Pa. St., 195; Goodwin v. Inhabitcmts of Marble-head, 1 Allen, 37; Bowley v. Walicer, 8 id., 21.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: ' “ This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Waukesha county, allowing the respondent to appeal from the order and judgment of the county court of said county admitting to probate the last will and testament of Elizabeth J. Jones, deceased. The order appealed from was made' under the provisions of sec. 4035, R. S. 1878.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit in an action upon an alleged implied contract for the support and maintenance of Maggie Bunce, from October, 1871, when she was about eight years old, to August 15,1877, when she was about fourteen years old.

Action to enjoin the defendants from entering upon the land of the plaintiff and from constructing a ditch thereon.

The complaint alleges that the defend ant, the Oity of Kenosha, was, when the cause of action arose, a municipal corporation, and the defendant Paul Sauber was then the treasurer of said city; that on February 18, 1882, the defendants unlawfully seized, took, and carried away from the possession of the plaintiff certain goods and chattels of the plaintiff, therein described, of the value of $900, and on the 25th of the same month the defendants, the Oity of Kenosha and…

. APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant company. The facts are stated in the opinion. At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony a motion for a nonsuit was granted, and from the judgment entered accordingly the plaintiff appealed. They contended: 1. The burden of showing negligence of the defendant was upon the plaintiff, and he utterly failed to establish it.

<p> Sale of chattels: Evidence: Intoxicated witness. </p> <p>1. In an action for the purchase price of lumber, evidence on behalf of the defendant that the lumber in question was not sold to him, but to another person, is admissible. Posey v. Pice, 29 Wis., 93, distinguished.</p> <p>2. If the fact that a witness is intoxicated is brought to the attention of counsel while such witness is on the stand, the objection to his competency must be taken then, and will not avail if made for the first time on a motion for a new trial.</p>

The plaintiff, John Hogan, an infant under seven years of age, brought this action, by his guardian ad litem, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the servants of defendant company.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ The plaintiff claims $620 of the town for boarding, lodging, extra care, nursing, and attention furnished and rendered, at the special instance and request of the town, to and for Pansier Tuttle, father of the plaintiff, who was during the time in need thereof, and a poor and indigent person, having a lawful settlement in the town.

. The case is thus stated, by Mr. Justice Tatloe: “ This action is brought by the appellant to restrain the sheriff of Outagamie county from seizing and selling his property to satisfy an execution in his hands, issued out of the circuit court of Waupaca county, upon a judgment rendered in favor of the Union National Bank of Streator, Illinois, against the appellant and F. M. Brown, Isaac Brown, and Anna A. Brown, for the sum of $613.44, The allegations in the complaint are,…

The action is to recover on a certificate of membership issued by the defendant company which insures the life of the plaintiff’s husband, William Morrison; the amount of the insurance being payable, by the terms of the contract, to the plaintiff.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatlob: “ This action was brought in the circuit court of Milwaukee county by the widow and executrix of the deceased, Thomas Knox, against the children of said deceased, to obtain a construction of the last will and testament of said deceased. The will was duly probated in the county court of said county, and letters testamentary were duly issued to the plaintiff.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “This is an action of ejectment commenced Júnelo, 1882, by the children and heirs at law of Charles T. Melms, who died Eebruary 19, 1869, in and a resident of Milwaukee county, seized and possessed of the land in question (and a large amount of other property), and which land the defendant Pfister claims under and by virtue of an executor’s sale, and confirmation thereof, made in April, 1870, and an executor’s deed thereof,…

Action upon a promissory -note for $641.25, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. To the point that the burden of proving the transaction illegal was upon the defendant, they cited: Roundtree v. Smith, 108 U. S., 269; Murry v. Ocheltree, 49 Iowa, 435; TJnion Nat. Bank v. Oarr, 15 Fed.

Action to recover for the use of a steam pump at the rate of $50 per day, and for services rendered and fuel furnished in the operation thereof. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

The action, is to recover damages for an alleged libel written and published by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff. This appeal is by the defendant from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “Actiou to recover damages for the non-delivery of a quantity of wood, which the plaintiff -claims, the defendants had agreed to deliver to him at his dock, in the city of Racine, in the fall of 1880.

Eeplevin. The facts are stated in the opinion. The cause was tried by the court, a jury having been waived. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendánt appealed.

Action for a libel. The cause was before this court on former appeals, and is reported in 40 Wis., 555, and 43 Wis., 242. There was a special verdict, the substance of which is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Action to foreclose a tax-sale certificate, brought by the alleged owner of the certificate against the original owners of the land described thei’ein, of whom the appellant is one.

Action of trespass for the unlawful taking by the defendant, N. B. Caswell, of certain millinery goods and fixtures belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant justified the taking under and by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed by the plaintiff and her husband. The evidence relating to the validity of the mortgage is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Action for a personal injury to the plaintiff caused by her falling over a block of wood about three feet long, lying upon the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s planing-mill, on Cedar street in the city of Milwaukee. The allegations of the complaint, the evidence, and the instructions to the jury are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The case is stated in the opinion. They argued, inter alia: 1. The credibility .of the evidence as to the signature was solely for the jury! 1 Greenl. on Ev., 577; Bierbaeh v. Goodyear Rubber Go., 54 Wis., 213; Van Doran v. Armstrong, 28 id., 241; Sharswood’s Starkie on Ev., 730, 874. 2.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassodat: “ The deceased [George Hahn] had seven children. To each of these he gave a portion of his property, May 2,1876. To his daughter, the defendant Garoline, he gave the 150 acres of land described in the complaint, and at the same time took back from her a note and mortgage executed by her and in favor of his daughter Salome for $1,500, as a part of the advancement then made to her.

After the affirmance of the order overruling the demurrer to the counterclaim contained in the answer of the defendant Bartels (see 54 Wis., 231), the plaintiffs replied to such, counterclaim by a general denial. Other facts are stated in the opinion. A motion for judgment, as by default, upon the counterclaim in the answer of the defendant Espenhain, was denied. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants appealed.

The defendant is a corporation, and a carrier of passengers for hire, in the city of Milwaukee, in cars propelled by horses. In May, 1882, the plaintiff was a passenger in one of these cars, and when alighting therefrom was injured by' the starting of the car. This happened on Sundaj'. This action is to recover damages for such injury. No question is raised on the pleadings.

Action of trespass guare clausum fregit. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The jury returned a special verdict, as follows: “ 1. Did the defendant enter upon the premises which are claimed by the pliantiff to have been in her possession, in the month of April, 1882, and dig post-holes thereon? A. Yes. “2. Did the defendant dig any holes west of the post which was placed by the county surveyor to indicate the line between him and the plaintiff? A. No. “ 3.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe : “Action to recover the amount of a 'bill for materials furnished and work and labor performed upon a carpenter’s combination work-bench. The answer was a general denial.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The complaint alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff is the widow of D. C. Bradley, who committed suicide in Kenosha county, December 25, 1881; that on January 4, 1882, the defendants, as publishers and proprietors of the JEvening Wisconsin, maliciously published concerning the plaintiff in said newspaper the false and defamatory matter following, to wit: “ Probable Cause of D. J. Bradley's Suicide (meaning the said D.…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “ The complaint alleges that the defendants were dealers in salt in the city of Milwaukee, including salt of the Michigan Salt Association; that the plaintiff was a dealer in salt in the city of La Orosse, and accustomed to buy salt in large quantities, which fact was known to the defendants; that on the 19th day of September, 1882, the defendants, at Milwaukee, wrote and posted to the plaintiff at La Orosse a letter, of which…

Action to recover for injuries to the plaintiff’s cutter and harness caused by the defendant’s negligence in having and using a defective and unsafe turn-table in a public street, and an improper iron latch or catch thereon, which caught the runner of the plaintiff’s cutter as he was driving by. The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing the complaint.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “This action was commenced in September, 1881, to recover five negotiable coupon bonds of $1,000 each, to restrain the transfer of the same, and to have the defendants adjudged to be trustees thereof for the plaintiff, on the ground, as alleged, that they were the property of the plaintiff and. were obtained from her husband in March, 1876, by and through the conspiracy, fraud, and imposition of the defend; ants, practiced…

Action to recover damages for the neglect of the defendant city to maintain a bridge. The complaint alleges that the city charter (Laws of 1874, ch. 184, subch. 9, sec. 7) contains the following provision: “ Stationary bridges shall also be maintained at the expense of the city across the Milwaukee river, from Racine street in the First ward to Humboldt avenue in the Sixth ward,” etc. Other allegations are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The complaint,— after setting forth the purchase of a site and the erection of buildings for a county insane asylum by the board of supervisors of the plaintiff county, in pursuance of the law contained in secs. 604«-604m, R. S. (ch. 298, Laws of 1818), the organization of a board of trustees in pursuance of said law, and the expenditure by the county of large sums of money for such site and buildings, in improving and furnishing the same, and for the current expenses of the…

<p> Bastardy: Proof of paternity. </p> <p>1. A bastardy proceeding is quasi-criminal, and the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be the father of the child .before he can be compelled to contribute to its support.</p> <p>2. A finding by the court, in such a case, that the defendant is guilty “ upon a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt,” is equivalent to an acquittal.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ This action is to recover damages for the breach of the following agreement in writing, to wit: “ ‘ MilwauK.ee, January 24,1882. ‘ 14,000 bus.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Winnebago County. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. cited, to the point that the verdict must be based solely on the testimony, and that the view was not itself evidence but merely intended to enable the jury better to understand the testimony: Stampof-s7d v. Steffens, 79 Ill., 303; Martin v. Johnson, 89 id., 537; Toledo, W. dé W. R’y Go. v. Ingraham, 77 id., 309; Miller v. Balthasser, 78 id., 302; Steele v. Davis, 75 Ind.,…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “ This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court dismissing an appeal to that court from the award of commissioners appointed on the petition of the railroad company to assess the damages for taking a certain tract of land for the purposes of such railroad.

* The facts are stated in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, and from the judgment entered thereon the, defendants appealed.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This action is to restrain the defendant from using and drawing water from the plaintiffs’ water-power in excess of the amount covered by certain leases held by it, and for an accounting and damages for such excess. The action was commenced by the service of a summons May 18, 18YY, in favor of Publius Y. Lawson, A. Lydia Reed, and Curtis Reed.

Action to recover the sum of $15 loaned to the defendant. The answer admits the loan and sets up a counterclaim for services rendered to the plaintiff to the amount of $93, in defending him against charges preferred against him in a secret society. The evidence and instructions to the jury sufficiently appear from the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $15 and interest, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

The case‘is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob: “ This action is in fact a contest between some of the creditors of one Jane E. Bigger, and her assignee, Andrew Haben. The facts are substantially as follows: On the 23d day of February, 1882, Jane E. Bigger made an assignment > of all her property not exempt from execution, to Andrevj Haben, for the benefit of her creditors, giving preferences. The assignment was made under the provisions of ch. 80, R. S. 1878.

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The work was done in July and August, 1881, the petition for the lien was filed'September 21, 1881, and the action was commenced on the following day. The petition as originally filed described the land upon which the work was done as the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 13, town 18, range 17 east, in Winnebago county. The issue of indebtedness was tried by a jury in June, 1882.

The plaintiff owned several stacks of grain and employed the defendants, who owned a threshing-machine operated by steam-power, to thresh the same for him. While engaged in doing the work (the plaintiff being present) fire was communicated from the engine to the stacks and they were burned. This action is to recover damages for the loss, on the alleged ground that the fire was the result of the defendant’s negligence. No question is raised on the pleadings.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Oassoday: “August 4, 18S0, and for a year prior thereto, the plaintiff Thompson was engaged in the practice of the law, as a member of the firm of Fish, Thompson & Comstock, located and doing business at Princeton, Wisconsin, and as such had tried most of their cases. August 4, 1880, that firm dissolved by the withdrawal of Thompson, who thereupon became a member of the law firm of Jaolcson c& Thompson, at Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

The common council of Oshkosh granted to the relators a license to sell liquors, and on payment of the fee it was issued; but before its expiration, the council revoked the license without notice or hearing, upon a charge of unlawful selling made by the chief of police. The relators sued out a writ of certiorari to the council from the county court, upon which judgment annulling the revocation was entered; and the council brought the case here by writ of error.

Action by the executor of J. Allen Barber, deceased, to foreclose a mortgage. The deceased in his life-time conveyed the land in question by warranty deed to one Slainhofer, and the latter thereafter conveyed the same by warranty deed to the defendant husband. Stainhofer being at the time of the latter conveyance indebted to one Loney, the defendants, at his request, executed the notes and mortgage in question to Loney as part payment for the land.

This action was commenced December 19, 1881. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “This is an action of ejectment to recover'the possession of a large tract.of land situate in the county of Marathon.

The plaintiffs are the grantees of the county. Such deeds were copied upon the records in the office of the proper register of deeds, but at what time does .not appear. Probably they were left for record soon after their execution. They were not entered in any index of recorded instruments until May 24, 1881. This action was commenced January 17, 1879. The complaint is in the statutory form.

The facts are stated in the opinion. That part of the answer which was demurred to was as follows: “Further answering, and for the purpose of pleading the statute of limitations herein, the defendant avers that he claims and at the commencement of this action claimed the title to said pine timber, through, under, and by virtue of a certain tax deed from Wood county to one Lawrence Ward, duly executed, witnessed, and acknowledged, on the 4th day of December, A. D. 1879, and…

<p> Criminal law and practice: Evidence </p> <p>1. Where in a criminal case there is no evidence against the accused, except the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, it is discretionary with the trial court whether to direct an acquittal or not; and a judgment will not be reversed for a refusal to set aside a verdict founded upon such testimony alone.</p> <p>S. The fact that an accomplice was induced to testify by an offer of immunity does not render him incompetent, but only goes to his credibility.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylok: “The plaintiff in error was arrested upon a complaint made in a justice’s court. .

EXCEPTIONS from the Circuit Court for Marathon County. The defendant was prosecuted in the municipal court for Marathon county for selling liquor to minors, and was convicted. He appealed to the circuit court and a trial in that court also resulted in a conviction. The cause comes to this court on exceptions, summarily settled and allowed by the court pursuant to the statute.

..APPEAL from the Circuit Court for La Grosse County. Cadwallader 0. Washburn died testate on May 14, 1882, leaving surviving him a widow and two children. His domicile was at La Crosse, Wisconsin, and that was also the domicile of his widow, who, at the time of his death, had been insane for many years.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries to the' plaintiff wife caused by the negligence of the defendant city, in allowing a derrick, used in repairing a bridge, to-, fall1 upon her. The facts connected with the service of the summons and complaint are stated in the opinion. The defendant failed to answer, and, an affidavit of default having been-filed, the damages were assessed by a jury and judgment: therefor rendered against the city.

Action upon a school district order for $11, signed by the clerk and countersigned by the director of joint school district No. 7, of the towns of Hazel Green and Benton. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This is an action of ejectment to recover twenty acres of land, to wit, the W. i of the S. W. of the N. W. ¿ of section 21, town 3, range 1 west, in Grant county. The defendant J.. MeDougal Davidson claimed title from the plaintiff, and the other defendant claimed as J. MoDougal Davidson's tenant. “ It appears from the evidence that the forty acres (including the twenty in question) was entered by the plaintiff May 24, 1841.

<p>APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Grant County.</p> <p>The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. Upon the question of self-defense they cited: 2 Bish. Cr. Law, secs. 643, 646; 1 East P. C., 272; TI. S. v. Wiltberger, 3 Wash. O. C., 515; Nailor's Case, Poster, Cr. L., 278; 3 Bl. Comm., 3; McOonaghy v. MeMullen, 27 Wis., 73; 2 Addison on Torts, sec. 792.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Grant County. The plaintiff in the first of these actions is John O. Ciarle, the guardian of Life F. Nash and Alta B. Nash, infant heirs of Robert Nash, deceased; in the second action, Mary C. Burkholder (formerly Mary C. Nash), also an heir of said Robert Nash. The facts are stated in the opinion.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. To the point that an •officer is protected by process fair and regular upon its face, they cited, besides the cases cited in the opinion: Bagnall v. Ableman, 4 Wis., 179; Watkins v. Page, 2 id., 92; Savaeool v. Boughton, 5 Wend., 170; Lewis v. Palmer, 6 id., 367; Holmes v. Huneaster, 12 Johns., 395; Earl v. Gamp, 16 Wend., 562; Warner v. Shed, 10 Johns., 138; Deyo v. Van Vallceiiburgh, 5 Hill, 242; Háble v. Holmes, id., 194.

This is an action by children and grandchildren of John Wilkinson, deceased, who are also the residuary devisees named in his will, to restrain the widow of said deceased from committing waste upon the homestead occupied by her as such widow, by cutting and selling timber therefrom; a,nd to recover damages for the timber already cut.

August Eggers died in Grant county, April 18, 1879, and the defendant was appointed administrator of his estate, June 14,1879. This action was brought July 27,1881, upon a promissory note made by the decedent in his life-time.

The plaintiff is the son and only heir at law of Charles Wright, late of the city of Prairie du Chien, who died in August, I860, intestate. April 23, 1864, Charles Wright executed to the defendant (his brother-in-law) a conveyance of a certain house and lot, and another conveyance of his interest-being an undivided half — in four other lots, all in that city. The first deed expresses a consideration of $2,100, and the other of $400.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylok: “This action was commenced in the circuit court against Mary F. Jarvis and Henrietta Stanley, under the provisions of secs. 1197-1210, R. S. 1878, to bar the defendants, ■as original owners, from all claim to certain lands described in a tax deed set out in the complaint. The defendant Mary F. Jarvis appeared in the action, and filed an answer.

The parties agreed upon a case and submitted it to the circuit court pursuant to sec. 2788, R. S., for the purpose of determining the ownership of $560 derived from licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors granted by the defendant village in 1882. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “The plaintiff, who was, during the times in question, a resident in the defendant town, brings this action for the support and maintenance of his daughter,— a divorced woman in poor health and destitute of all means of support,— and her children, from January 24, 1875, to August 15, 1875, and from October 7, 1877, to March 25, 1879.

Two causes of action are stated in the complaint: one for the wrongful cutting and conversion of pine timber in 1870' and 1871; and the other for a similar tort committed at some time between December 1,1874, and April 1,1880, the' precise time of which the plaintiff cannot state. The-answer,. among other things, alleges that the first cause of action did not accrue within six years.

The facts are stated in the opinion. For the appellant it was argued, among other things, that the plaintiff should not have been permitted to state that lie would not have bought the horse without a warranty. The jury should determine what the contract was from the acts and declarations of the parties alone. Rich v. Jakway, 18 Barb., 357; Flanders v. Cottrell, 36 Wis., 570; Crounse v. Fitch, 23 Plow.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatloe: “ Action to recover the value of certain saw-logs which the plaintiff claimed to own, and which he alleges the defendant unlawfully took from his possession and converted to his own use. [The answer was a general denial.] “ The plaintiff, to prove his title, introduced evidence showing that he bought the logs in question at a sale made by the town treasurer to pay the taxes assessed against a man by the name of J. S. Keator.

The case is stated in the opinion. The notice served on the chairman of the defendant town was as follows: “ To ‘ the Supervisors of the Town of Wheatland, Yernon County, State of Wisconsin: “ Please take notice, that Michael Fopper hereby presents his claim against the Town of Wheatland aforesaid, for tbe sum of $500, for injuries received by him in person, said injuries received on the 20th day of December, 1880, while traveling on the public highway, in section 18 in said…

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: There is, and for many years has been, a public highway running north and south on the line between sections 10 and 11, in township 16 N., of range 4 W., being in the town of Leon, in. the county of Monroe, Wisconsin. The plaintiff owns, and did during the time in question, the S. % of the N. E. J- of said section 10, along upon the east line of which ran said highway.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Lincoln County. The appeals are by the defendants from orders refusing to permit the answers to be so amended as to set up the statute of limitations. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace, and the plaintiff recovered. Indue time a'notice that the defendant appealed from the judgment to the circuit court was filed with the justice, but the same was not signed by any one. At the same time an affidavit of appeal and undertaking in due form, each signed by the defendant, were also filed with the justice. These were printed and written on the same sheet with the notice.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “ Action to recover the sum of $4,650, which the plaintiff alleges he paid to the defendant company upon a void contract for the purchase of the capital stock of said company, of the par value of $10,000.

Upon the affidavit of the relator a writ of certiorari was issued out of the circuit court commanding the town clerk to certify to said court the proceedings of the board of review of the town of Greenfield, in raising the relator’s personal property assessment.