, 1865-02-07

.. 8. DISTRICT CouRT-Bsfore Hon. z Drum
mond.-The CAUSE entitled julius Nadsworth o.
Chicago i Northwestern Railway Company came
up before Judge Drummoud yesterday, on a mo-
ton by complainant for an Injunction and the ~
po1ntment Of receiver.
Judge Drumuond said be was unwilling 10 con-
Elder me motion, for the reason that he had been
more OF less connected, either az stakeholder OF
director, With the old Galena road since it's IN
corporation; that he Is now Interested in the
stock Of said road, he having the charge Of an es-
tate, which Is possessed OF some Of the shares,
which have never been transferred for The stock Of
t heara ba s't5 It sin
legislation b which ii was auth orzcd, Of how such
Ting f9rld be done Upon this statement The
motion to Judge David Davis, Circuit Judge for
hs Ssg1 cod7Sis nsttst e n9 canst mt e
courtat Wankcgan. It viii meet again in this citS
0? 'ns .n'5s s. 5g:
Upon the general warrant for taxes, fled By the
City Collector, Judgement was entered yesterday,
ana IN o1sr made the ting t. e o
tended 70 Wednesday morning md 1cavo given TO
0pe;n az az re depos1tons; Inc Court adjourned
= az RHconpaass S1 coun1SB;}ore IN 1udge Fan Buren,
@osevelal quits brought By the city In The Police
q
Court, on appeal, were dismissed yesterday for
The cause entitled City e. Samuel Young, ap-
ed IN conviction Of defendant
In the cause entitled Harnischaser rs. Harnlsch-
nger, DIVORCE, defendants attorney moved for
saiiisan e.. Sullivan, divorce, was dismissed at
the instance Of complainant
SATURDAYS PRocEEn1NGs.
CIRCUIT CoGnT-B9fore Judge 4Eillidnss-In the
cause entitled james Marun %. John B. Wilson
bcr last, . Judgment Vas ob.ained against de-
fcndant, It appearing to the court that defendant
I;a,sson died prior to The Judgment in the cause,
Of his death YVES made, it vas therefore ordered
that ths }Sadgment Ssg 60 obtained be get aside and
In the cause entitled Marcus against the Gin
cinnati Air Line Railroad Company, by agree.
.meut, the time to file IN appeal bond was extended
TO the first day Of next term.
plaintiff came into court and asked that her hus-
band be required to pay her alimony daring the
pendency Of the action. Her afidaylt alleged thas
Per month, and that she was utterly unable to
prosecute the suit unless the court should order
defendant t3 psy suitable fRm IGF INT pafnoss
that his income Is bnt $50 month, after support
ing his family. and showing that his wifa is still
member Of hts household, and u, ,ma,ntsinlns her
caused an order to be entered, that defendant pay
to p,aint1n $3.50 for counsel fees, and go per
In he &C cause entitled David Knowles IS Eliza
beth Knowles, for divorce, defendant came into
court by her Attorney, and moves for an order re-
quirirg plaintiff to pny to her counsel suitable
sum fof to enable her to maintain her defense
md to procure Witnesses, and also for an order re-
qntring him to amend his bill, or file bill OF par
t1sulars setting forth specifically the per:ons,
argument the Court granted the motion concern
IN: fees, Sc, and ordered plaintiff to pay counsel
$3.50 within thirty days. That portion OF the mo-
tion referring to the exhibition OF bill OF paric
ulars was orerru1ed.