In the case of State vs. Herbert Rose which was on trial when the Index was printed last week, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The evidence of the principals was extremely conflicting. Rose pleaded self defense. He claimed that Mowery, the complaining witness, attacked him and also cursed his father. This Mowery denied but did make some minor admissions which weakened his case. It was an assault and battery case, carrying the usual felony clause. As before dated, Rose used a pitch fork as a weapon and bruised him considerably. County Attorney Field prosecuted and Nobel & Tincher defended. The jury was as follows:

Geo. Eckert
Alfred Luther
Thos. Kenney
Wm. Palmer
Wm. Parsons
Curtis Parsons
Sim Ewalt
Frank Muncy
Homer Talbot
Robt. Terrill
Davis Gordon
Quince Circle

The case of State vs. J. B. and John McGarrah was tried on Wednesday. This came up on appeal from police court from Kiowa. The defendants were convicted in the lower court on a charge of disturbing the peace and were fined $50 and costs. The complainant was Jesse Lind. The defendants are engaged in the hotel business. Mrs. Lind had been working for them but quit. J. B. McGarrah went to the Lind home and asked her to return to work. Her husband objected and a quarrel ensued. McGarrah went home and soon returned with his son, John, and the quarrel was renewed.

Before going to trial the elder defendant pleaded guilty but the son stood trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty after being out less than 5 minutes.

Nobel & Tincher represented the city of Kiowa and G. M. Martin representing the defendants.

The following jury sat in the case:

Wm. Palmer
J. M. Crouse
Geo. Eckert
T. S. Gresham
Geo. Walker
H. C. Kimball
H. Churchill
R. C. Kenney
C. Friday
Homer Talbott
Frank Muncy
W. L. Iliff

The McGarrahs have been giving the Kiowa officials considerable trouble during the past year and the city authorities are gratified that they have been sustained by a Barber county jury in this prosecution. Sentence had not been passed by Judge Gillett when the paper was printed.

The important civil suit of the term was that of D. M. Circle vs. Armada J. Potter. The plaintiff traded a ranch near Kiowa to the defendant for a drug store in Chillicothe, Mo. Both had made high figures as is generally the case in trades. Circle sold his ranch for $13,500 and Mrs. Potter sold the drug store for $7,000. The latter executed a note and mortgage on the land to make settlement of the difference between the selling price of the drug store and the land which was $6,500. When the note became due Circle foreclosed and the defendant set up a claim of fraud. She alleged that the land had been sold to her far above its value, that plaintiff, in inducing her to buy, leased the land for a year at four times its rental value in order to deceive her and in other ways took advantage of her, and asked to be released from payment of the note. Circle made general denial, admitting that in the trade he priced the land higher than for a cash sale but alleged that he paid from three to four times more for the drug store than its real value.

The jury was composed of the following persons:

Homer Talbott
Wm. Palmer
Geo. Eckert
R. C. Kenney
W. L. Iliff
H. Churchill
T. S. Gresham
C. Friday
J. B. Fairley
J. C. George
Arthur Goddard
H. C. Kimball

Each side introduced evidence to sustain their respective allegations and to a disinterested observer it appeared that each tired to unload something on the other. Mr. Circle finally disposed of the drug store for $400 which he took in the trade at $7000. The store was run down and used for trading purposes for many years, some of the bottles labeled as medicine contained colored water, there were few goods and most of the stock was out of date according to evidence detailed by Mr. Circle's witness. J. M. Miller of Kiowa was the real estate dealer who had charge of the deal. He and Mr. Circle could not agree on the facts and each claimed that if any misrepresentations had been made to Mrs. Potter, the other made them. Circle testified that he listed the land with Miller & Lawrence at $6,500 and that it was agreed that the firm should keep all above that sum they could sell for. Miller testified in rebuttal at the call of Mrs. Potter's attorneys and his testimony clearly showed that there were strained relations between him and Circle.

The case went to the jury at 3 o'clock Saturday afternoon and a verdict was returned finding for the defendant, Mrs. Potter, about 2 o'clock A. M., Sunday. The verdict awards the defendant a total judgment of $8,500, which includes a note given her by plaintiff for lease on land, and $7,000 damage by virtue of the trade. The effect of the verdict not only loses Circle his entire section of land, but he is also loser over $1,000 more plus attorneys fees and costs. The fact that the defendant was a widow woman together with the fact that she had three men to deal with - Circle, Miller and Cully - had a great influence in shaping the verdict. The further fact that both Miller and Cully testified against Circle was also damaging to him. The transaction was anything but commendable all the way through and even the lady defendant could hardly be said to be held entirely blameless.

Special questions were submitted to the jury and it required several hours for the jurors to figure out answers to them. How well they succeeded in answering them in harmony with the law and evidence is a matter upon which lawyers differ. The special question law is a special nuisance.

Mr. Circle has taken steps to special the case to the supreme court and it looks like a long drawn out litigation.

Circle was represented by Seward I. Field of this city, J. D. Houston of Wichita and F. F. Perry of Kiowa. The defendant was represented by Noble & Tincher of this city and Cloud & Cloud of Cherokee, Oklahoma.

L. E. Cavanaugh vs. J. E. Gooden, Judgement for plaintiff in the sum of $403, and garnishes ordered to pay money into court.

J. M. Miller vs. G. Plaff, Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $289.00.

Judgment quieting title was granted in the following cases:

J. C. Higgins vs. Samuel Illinton, deceased;
Bertha Rumsey vs. W. A. Hopkins;
Seward I Field vs. L. G. Peck.

C. D. Rackley, H. C. Case and Jack Williams were appointed to partition the real estate in the McCracken partnership, which is the estate of the late E. L. McCracken and C. T. McCracken. The proceeding is for the purposes of dissolving the partnership and making settlement of the estate of the deceased.

The divorce case of Newkirk vs. Newkirk was taken up Monday.

There is nothing practically sensational about the trouble. Ed and his wife do not seem to be able to live in harmony. She agrees that he neglects her but her accusations are much milder than is the custom in most divorce cases, and as a matter of fact she has more to say in criticism of her mother-in-law than her husband. She claims that her feelings have often been wounded by the elder Mrs. Newkirk. On account of the conditions of the defendant's eyes and his inability to do ___rd work, he and his wife lived most of the time with his parents and the young wife was not satisfied. The plaintiff left the defendant several months before bringing suit. the defendant and his parents denied all the material charges made by the plaintiff.

G. M. Martin of this city and D. B. Welty of Oklahoma City represent the plaintiff and Seward I. Field and Noble & Tincher represent the defendant.

The regular jury was excused for the term Saturday night.

Judge Gillett expects to complete the work of the term today, barring some court matters, for which purpose an adjourned day will be set, probably some time next month.