, 1859-05-13
U. S. DISTRICT COURT.
| ArRn TrRN, 4. D. ls59l

! hihll' itHNl, n. ~. loOJ.
The District Court for the first Judca
District Of Washington Territory was be
gun and held at Vancouver in the county
of Clarke, on Monday the llth day O
April, A. d. 1859; district embracing the
counties Of Spokane, Walla-walla, Skama
MIA, Clarke, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz and Pa.
cilic. Present, the Hon. VIM Strong
Judge; Il. 7. Anderson, Prosecuting Attor
ney for the territory of Washington; g
w. CorlesS, U. S. Marshall; Geo. Grooms
Sheriff of Clarke county; and James b. L.;
Du, clerk of the District Court for the first
Judicial District.
The following are the causes presented
to the court and their disposition thereof:
S. d. Maxon VS.. county of Clarke-iot
debt-cOuse continued.
+. A. Chenoweth VS. L. a. Seymour
for deGt.-samc.
County OF Clarke VS.. s. d. Maxon, IL.
j. q. Maxon and Denis Leiser-fOr debt
same.
Hass & Bros VS.. Smith and Strong
for attachment-same.
Hudson Bay Co. VS.. Ell. Taylor-ior
tresspass-cause continued, with injunction
costs TO abide the event of suit.
VIM. c. Moody VS.. Henry Winsor-
debt and appeal. This cause to be contin-
ued at the plaintiffs cost; the proper bond
to be filed with the clerk within thirty
days from the last day Of this present term
Of court or the case to be dismissed.
S. c. Archless VS.. Alex Rodgers, Levi
Farnsworth, administrator of the estate Of
Isabella Rodgers-for debt. After hear
ing the complaint Of the plaintiff and the
demurrer thereto, it is considered that the
demurrer is well taken; wherenpon the de-
fendant asks TO amend, which is granted
and the demurrer Withdrawn The defend
ant then files his answer and the court
orders that the plaintiff shall file his reply
within thirty days from the last day Of this
present term Of court, and the cause is con-
tinued
C. c. Stiles & Richard Augh VS.,
Isaac Kaufman, administrator Of, &C.,
application for an injunction. The court
being duly advised in the premises, orders
that the defendant he enjoined from ad-
miuistering on the estate Of James q. Par
ker, deceased, until the next term Of the
Probate Court Of Clarke county, whereupon
the plaintiffs filing bond with snrities TO the
approval Of the court in the,sum Of one
hundred dollars.
Alex. Davis VS.. HELEN Davis--applica.
tion for divofce-cause continued
Gaatin Kinder VS.. N. NJ. Kinder-ap.
4 nlicAtion for diyorce-same
Isabella Hunt VS.. Robert Hunt--appli-
cation for diyorce-granted at plainliff 5
cost ' 7 "a
Fhos. Mathews VS.. Spears aud Mayhem
for debt--dismissed at plaintiffs cost.
Sherbert Archless VS.. Levi Fdrnsw0rth--
| for deht-samc.
John Bonser and Armstrong VS.. j. S.
Hathaway (plaintiffs in error defend
ants in ror)-mandate On hearing the
arguments the court orders that an execu-
tion be issued in favor Of the defendant iD
error. No..
w. b. Wells vs. S. B. Ives-attachmeht
On motion Of the plaintiff this cause was
settled at his cost, and the court orders an
execution issued therefor. isrss ir rs.
l.. b. Gardiner VS.. county Of Clarke
for debt. On motion Of the plaintiff this
cause was settled at his cost, whereupon
the court orders that the plaintiff pays the
cost Of tho prosecution to be taxed.
Camp aud Stryker VS.. G. G. Stiles--for
debt. The court orders that the plaintiff
recover Of the defendant the sum at issue,
and the cost Of court TO be taxed.3l 9a1flJ
Camp and Stryker VS.. Patrick Donegan
for debt. The court orders that the
plaintiff RECEIVERS Of the defendant the SUN
ut issue, and cost Of prosecution to be
taxed.
Isaac Kaufman, administrator, &c, VS..
lC. G. Stiles-ior debt. The court orders
that plaintiff RECEIVERS Of defendant the
sum at issue, and cost Of court to be taxed
aud that execution issne therefor.
Chas. Graft VS.. W. Z. Smith--cognoyit
The court orders that the plaintiff reeoveI
Of the defendant the sum at issue, aud the
cost Of this prosecution to be taxed aDd
that execution issue therefor.
Andrew Sherry vs. Cbas. Quail--foI
debt-appcal Settled ut plaintiffs cost
whereupon the court orders that tho de
fendant pay the cost of the prosecution Il
be taxed.
l. M. Coffee VS. Henry Shoemaker
for trespass. Case submitted TO the jury
who find the defendant indebted TO th'
plaintiff in the sum at issue, whereupon th'
: court orders that the plaintiff RECEIVERS 0
: the defendant the said sum, aud pay al
!. costs Of this prosecution to be taxed an'
b that execution issue therefor,
Wilson VS.. Rodgers-appeal. On me
u ton of the plaintiff the answer Of the dc
:. fendant is stricken from the Gle, aud neithe
# party demanding jury it is ordered by th
G court that the plaintiff recover Of the dt
$ fendant the sum at issue, cost and damage
to be taxed, and that execution issu
? therefor.
1 o,,is Vanvleat vs John Toolpv-ai