The Phoenix herald., 1879-10-24
THE DISTRICT COURT.
TnuRsnAr. OcroBrn 1s.

A. Cil1N CfSi h- The Grand Jury being called, pre-
 sented the following indictments: Against An Joe for grand larceny
 This being the only indictmen;
 found, the Grand Jury then retired. Henry Garfias was then sworn as
 interpreter for the Grand Jury. The following civil cases were
 cs;lcd, and action taken therein; i3c suit of George Hall vs. Tho. Scot tappellanD, was, on motion of
 P. j. Dolan and J. w. Stephenson, at torneys for plaintiff. and on the pro- dnc.ion of the necessary certificate of Hon. William A. Hancock, Probate Judge, dismissed at appellants costs.
 In the case of Ellis, Asher C Co.
 vs. The Griffin Ditch Company the demurrer was ovcrrulcd, to which ruling the defendant excepted.
 The suit of Sallie B. Silsbee vs. Edward B. Silsbee, was, on motion of plaintiffs counsel, J. ". Van Slyck, placed on the calendar, and defendants default entered, and case referred to William Isaac 10 take tes- timony and report therin.
 The demurrer in the suit of Francis A. Bashford vs. John '. T. Smith was, after argument, sustained, and, on motion of J. T. Alsap, plaintiffs s counsel, the case was dismissed.
 AFTER RECESS.
 The Grand Jury being called pre- sented the following indictments:
 Against Santiago Madril for grand larceny
 Against Francis Sabedra for grand larceny
 The Grand Jury then retired for the consider iation of further business.
 On motion of P. J. Bolan, attorney for the defence, in the suit of the Territory of Arizona vs. An Joe the time allowed for the defendant to an swer was extended to Monday, October 20.
 The court then adjourned until Friday, October IT.
 FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17th Court opened pursuant to yester- days adjournment. Hon. DeForrest Porter, Judge presiding. Present: R. S. Thomas Sheriff, by II. c. Me Donald Under Sheriff, and Francis A. Shaw, Clerk.
 Demurrer in the suit of Henry Gar fias vs. J. T. Priest, argued and sus- tained.
 The Grand Jury then presented the following indictments:
 Against John Ellis, for assault with deadly weapon, with the in tent to infiict bodily harm on the per son of another.
 Saturday, October 18th, IS the day set for the prisoner to plead to the indictment
 Against Santiago Madril, for Grand 1 larccncy. The day set for the pris- oner to plead to the indictment, Sat urday, October 18th.
 The Grand Jury there retired and i the hearing of civil suits was re sumed.
 On motion of William A. Hancock, counsel for plaintiff, the suit of AL bert Mau S Co. vs. Nathan & Co. was dismissed.
 The Court then took a recess.
 1t o'clock the court resumed business.
 Minutes of proceeding day read and approved.
 Tie suit of w c. Streeter vs. Jos cnl Iaalheimcr SC. for trial on Wed T. Ea,aay, October 9.
 inc suit of Silas Tidwcll vs. Jul jus Yanslyclk, Charles T. Martin, A. E. Jones and John A. Miller, was on motion of J. W. Vanslyck dismissed The suit of Silas Tidwell vs. J. Vanslyck was on motion of J. W. Yanslyck, counsel for defence, dis missed. TEe suit of the Grand Canal Cc. vs. N. 4. Wilson was set for trial Wednesday, October % Argument on the demurrer in the Suit of F. G. Wentworth vs Mary A. Woolsey. administratrix of the estate of King s. Woolsey was on motion of J. T. Alsap, counsel for defence : set for hearing, Saturday, October 18th. Court adjourned until Saturday | October IS, at 10 a. m. z
 SATURDAY, OCTOBER IS. ( Court opened pursuant to yester- l lays adjournment. Hon. DeForrest 2 Porter, Judge presiding. Present: R. s. Thomas, sheriff, and Francis A, Shaw, clerk.
 Minutes of Fridays proceedings cad, and approved.
 The testimony of Jose H. Messen- ger, in the suit of S. $. Smith vs R. 5 Thomas ct al., was, on motion of c !. ". Van Slyck, counsel for plain if. ordered to be opened by the Clerk.
 The case of Nellie s. Clare vs. J. ' I. Cox was set for trial October 4.
 In the suit of the Territory of Arizona vs. John Ellis, charged with assault, with intent to do bodily Ii larm, the defendant plead not guilty.
 In the suit of the Territory of Ari .ona vs. Santiago Madril, charged with grand larceny, the defense en- cred demurrer to the indictment, which was oTerruled by the Court, 0 which ruling the defense excepted. V The plea of not guilty was entered by F he defense Case was set for trial on