Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-01-27
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

SAN FRANCISCO, January "a, 1880.
Park Henshaw admitted to practice on motion of
f. S. Pilstury and license from the Supreme
Court Of Missouri
Myer VS.. Spooner ct al.-0n motion of Drake for
appellant, and affidavit on file, ordered that appl
cant have five days additional time within which to
serve and file transcript on appeal
6929-We vs.. Kenfeld-Argued by Sears TYLER
Fox and Cowdery for petitioner, and Dickinson,
Cohen and Rnos for respondent, and submitted with
leave to file brief on Monday.
5S79--In the matter of the grading OF Montgorn-
cry avenue, on motion Of Ames for respondents and
filing petition for rehearing, ordered that stay of
proceedings be granted herein until the same is de-
termned.
Department No. 1.
MONDAY January 2Gth.
10,455-The People vs. Green-On motion of Budd
for appellant judgment set aside and cause re-
stored to the calendar, and set for Tuesday, Jan
uary 9th.
57es -wetherbee ct al. vs. Williams ct al.-Dis
missed.
57S7 Rider ct al. VS.. Edgar-Argued by Nc
kusick for respondent and Sawyer for appellants,
5sll-Gleeson vs.. Gleeson-Argued by McHenry
for appellant, and further argument continued I'M
til tomorrow.
-Himmclman VS.. City and County of San
francisco-Continued, no appearance.
Department No. 2
FRIDAY AFTERNOON, January 23d.
G352-Meiggs VS.. Brunstich-On motion Of Fire
baugh for appellant cause submitted on briefs on
file
In the matter Of the admission to practice of Ed
mund l.. Goold-lt appearing to the Court that
Edmund l.. Goold was admitted to practice in this
Court ON motion of Henry S. Foote, on the LIST day
OF October 1855, but that entry thereof appears
on the minutes, it is ordered on motion of E L.
Goold, that an order be entered u &c pro tune as
of said day, admitting said E. L. Goold to practice
as an attorney and counselor in all the Courts OF this
State.
5561-Forbes ct al. vs. Mcdonald ct al Argued
by Highton for appellants and Lake for respondents
and cause submitted.
5679- Noe VS.. SplivalO-Argued by Drake for ap-
pellaut and Hayes fer respondent, and further arg-
ment continued until Monday, January Goth.
MONDAY, January &c, 1880
5SS3-Porter VS.. Woodward-It Is ordered that the
said Isaac Hyde be and he is hereby substituted as
one of the respondent herein, in place of said r. b.
Woodward deceased. On motion of Wilson for
calendar for Forbes vs. McGrath No. 675S, March
18th. Also, on motion of Wilson, for and sug-
gestion of the death of r. b. Woodward one Of the
respondents herein, since the filing Of the transcript
on appeal, and that Isaac Hyde is the executor of
the estate of said r. b. Woodward, deceased
6759-Forbes MeGrath ct al. 6759-Forbes vs.
Reilly ct al.-0n motion of Reardon for appellant,
permission granted to correct appellants points on
file.
66S1-McDonald vs.. McCorkey-Motion to dismiss
appeal argued by Palmer for respondent and Griffith
for appellant, and submitted.
6S29-Moerenhaut ct al vs.. Bell Tr,Istee-On mo-
ton of weymire and suggestion of the death of j.
A. Moerenhaut, one of the plaintiffs and appellants
herein, since the filing of this transcript in this
Court, and that Blanche E. Crowley is the admins
tratrix of the estate Of said J. A. Moerenhaut de-
ceased, it is ordered that said Blanche f. Crowley be
and is hereby substituted plaintiff and appellant
herein in place and stead of said J. a Moerenhaut,
deceased
5679-Noe VS.. SpliYalo ct al-Argument con-
cluded by Hayes for respondent and Drake for
appellant and cause submitted
5770-Chapman VS.. Quinn-Argued by Townsend
for appellant, and pending the argument the Court
took q recess.