Arizona citizen., 1877-11-23
District Court Proceedings.

District Court Proceedings.
 The following proceedings were had In the District Court, presided over by Hon. c. G. w. French, fcr the week ending No vember 9:
 In the case of ] A Patrick vs WY Elliot. the motion to strike out was denied.
 In the case Of Belinda c Mason vs c c Mason; on motion of plaintiffs attorney. cause dismissed without prejudice to in- stitute a new action.
 In the case of F NJ Slankard vs John NJ Brannaman, the demurrer in this case was overruled and the defendant granted i've days to answer.
 In the case Of the Territory or Arizona vs Charles Fisher; the defendant in this case plead not guilty to the indictment charging him with grand larceny. The case was fully argued by attorneys, after which the jury retired, after an absence of one hour the jury returned into court and rendered verdict of not guilty.
 In the case Of Juan EStrado vs James Brash; this is a suit to quit title. The de- fendant demurred to the complaint. which demurrer was argued and overrul- ed; the defendant was granted i've days to answer
 The order heretofore made submitting the charge against A Hammond to the next Grand Jury, was on the U7th inst re- scinded, and an order made to exonerate the sureties of Hammond from further re- sponsibility.
 In the case of Otten and Loss vs P R Brady, L Nj and B Jacobs the demurrer in this case confessed, and one day granted Ito file amended complaint. The defend ants have again demurred to the amended complaint. Case set for trial November P.
 In the case of John H Archibald vs John Simon; the motion in this case to strike out was denied, and leave granted the plaintiff 10 insert the title of the court in his complaint, and two days granted de- fendant to answer
 The appeal in the case of the Territory of Arizona vs W Furguson; appellant was dismissed.
 In the case of NJ L Power vs CG Mason; the plailtig moved to strike out certain portions of defendants answer. The at torneys argued the case fully on both sides, and submitted to the court, and taken un- der advisement.
 In the case of G W Nash vs P J Van Ha- ren; this is suit for recovery of one fourth interest in the Seventy-Six mining claim. The case was tried before the court, and taken under advisement. The court up to date, 22d, has not gwen judg- ment.
 In the case Of F L Morgan vs A ? Nor gan, the plaintiff sued for divorce and after carefully examining the evidence, granted the prayer for the plaintiff.
 In the two cases in which NJ. H. Hamll- ton is plaintiff and Charles Whitlow de- fendant, the demurrer was confessed and leave granted the plaintiff to file and amend complaint. The defendant was granted ten days to answer, and 10th cases were set for trial on the 5Oth proxi- mo.
 In the case Of Louis DePuy vs Mary De- Puy; the plaintiff sued for divorce, a ref cree was appointed and the Court after carefully examining the testimony sub mitted, granted the prayer of the plaintiff and awarded the custody Of the children to the plaintiff.
 In the case of A EchaIleis vs Calaiz and Irwin; judgment was given in favor Of the plaintiff.
 In the case of c Bauman, ct als, vS Jones, ct al; case submitted to the Jury but the Jury failed to agree.
 John P Clum, Esq, was on the 10th in- stant admitted to practice as an attorney in this court.
 The case Of Slankard vs Branaman Is now on trial before a jury Of nine.