Arizona citizen., 1877-11-30
[ o CAL MA TIERS,
Proceedings Of the Dis.ric, Cour

GU oy the Clerk of the District Court, John J. Devlne, Esa.i
 Proceedings Of our District Court, pre- sided over by Chief Justice French, for the week ending November 29;
 In the case Of Slankar vs. Brannaman, which was tried before jury of nine on the 22d instant, after hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel;iG. H. Oury, Esq, for plaintiff and MesSrs; Fitch and Summers for defendant. the jury retired and returned into court in fifteen minutes with verdict for plaintiff. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict of the Jury.
 In the case Of Belinda Coronal Mason vs. Charles G. Mason, the motioh to strike out certain portions Of the ahswer was argued by Fitch for plaintiff an Blair for defendant. The case was ord red set for trial on Monday. the Sd of Dece{ {nber next. The action is brought to dissolve the bonds Of matrimony alleged to exist between the parties to the action, There is a large amount involved, and 1t is supposed that the trial will consume four or five days, as the evidence in this case Is to be writ ten. Governor Woods appears as one of defendants counsel, and no doubt will aequit himself as he usually does in an able manner. Clark Churchill, Esq, ST. rived here from Prescott few days ago, to take part in the trial as one Of the counsel for plaintiff. Mir. Churchill is said to be an able lawyer, so that on the whole, the trial may be expected to be an interesting one to outsiders.
 The case Of Austin & Dempsey vs. Mil ton Ward, was tried before the court on the 23d instant. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage on the water right in the Casa Grande Water Ditch. The case was submitted and taken under advise ment. The court has not yet given its de- lcision.
 In the case of J. A. Patrick vs. W. V. EI- Hot, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the ac- ton in accordance with stpulations on file. The court granted the motion.
 In the case Of Juana Estrada Ys. James Brash, the case was called on the 24th in- stant for trial. The defendant not being present, on motion of his attorney, the further hearing Of the case was continued mo definite time being fixed tb hear the defense.
 In the case of H, Barnes vs. Hampton Ellis, ct als, the plaintiff moved 10 dissolve the injunction issued in this case on the ground of nonjurisdictiOn for the reason that the property involved Qt being suit for the possession of 8 mining claim on Pinto Creek is claimed by the defendants to be in Maricopa county. The hearing lof the motion was set for the list proximo,
 An order was made by the court on the 26th instant, discharging all jurors in at- tendance.
 In the case Of Often and Loss vs. P. R. Brady, Sheriff of Pinal county and l.. NJ. Jacobs ct al, the defendants demurred to the amended complaint filed in this ac- ton and moved that the demurrer be sus- tained and judgment granted thereon. The court took the matter under advise ment on the 26.h instant, and on the fol- lowing day overruled the demurrer and denied the defendants motion to strike out certain portions Of plaintiffs amend ed complaint. Exception was taken to the rulings or the court. Briggs Goodrich, Esq, one Of the defendants counsel, has used his endeavors in a masterlg manner to kick the action out of court, on queS- tions Of law. Briggs is never found nap ping. on the contrary, he appears to be at f,1H lad fa los Int any and everything that comes up. If his lclIents are defeated in this matter, they certainly cannot attach any blame 10 him. Besides his law points, Briggs appears in court every morning with a written mo- ton in one thing or another, and on his entrance, the Clerk commences 10 write on his minutes, "On motion of Briggs Goodrich, Esq.," in anticipation. The case was set for trial before the court Ia jury having been waived by both parties) on the 29th. The action will be determined tomorrow.
 The case of Sutherland vs. Thttle and Sweeny was heard before the court on the 26th instant. Several witnesses were ex- amined on both sides. Case submitted and taken under advisement.
 In the case of Echalller vs. Calaiz and Irwin, judgment was entered ir favor of plaintiff.
 The Territitory of Arizona vs- c. T. Hay den; this is an action for the collection of taxes, and was heard by the court on the 27th instant, and taken under adyisement.
 The cases of NJ. L. Power vs. C. c. Ma son and NJ. l.. Power vs. Aaron Mason, were on motion Of defendants continued for the term at the cost of defendants.
 Osoar Nj. Brown and Clark Churchill were admitted to practice as attorneys.
 Court met this morning. the 29th, and at request Of attorneys adjourned until to- morrow, on account Of this being PhaDks- giving Day. His Honor, Judge French, has contracted a very severe cold since lthe opening Of court, but will not give In, as he is determined to clean the calendar before adiourning. The taxpayers Of this lcouuty have reason to rejoice over the economical management Of court business by Judge French.
 WE had the pleasure Of a call this week from the Hon. Clark Churchill of Pres cott, who is here attending the present ses- sion of court. His partner, MT Fitch, has Lust left us for his home in Prescott, where he expects to be joined by his wife from san Francisco. We have heard; it inti-