The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-11-09
OLD SOLDIERS"
BM clean Goods, New Stock, and Lou PnCesO Of
SCHOOL SUPPLIES. 1gA Il a Rq Ed AsS sfoSE ~ 7 HErsH,

1900. Jones, democrat, for congress, be
about 2,l00; King, for the state senate
about 2,400. Wash Jones received abOt
200 votes. Russell. Independent for con
gress, about $50, and Wade about the same
County officers elected are representative
j. Tilson; judge, j. s. Sheriff.; attorney
5 d.. Stenson; sheriff, N. j. Ross; county
clerk, A. Cameron; district clerk, A.. G
Pace; treasurer, G. Weatherly; collector, G
W. Collier; assessor, s.. A. Cochran. These
figures are o ly as estimated. Returns
from all the precincts are not in.
Tyler.
TYLER, Nov. 8.-[SDecial. l-Court of APP
peals: Affirmed; Reed VS.. Lockett, from
Johnson county; Brooks VS.. the State, from
Navarro county; Ish VS.. the State, from Ma
varro county; McKie VS.. %Simpkins ct al,
from Navarro county; Proctor ct al. vs..
Robinson G. Bro, from wise county; Parks
ct al. VS.. Billiard ct al from Ellis county;
McMahon VS.. the State, from Rains county:
Osborne d Co. VS.. King ct al, from Falls
county; Prestige VS.. the State, from Hood
county; George VS.. the State, from Delta
county; Crawter VS.. the State, from Hop
kins county; Friday VS.. the State, from An
gela county; Carter ct al VS.. Park ct al,
from Cooke county; Lespry VS.. Marrow,
from Grayson county; reversed and re-
manded
Aycock VS.. DoIey, from Falls county;
Howard vs.. Moore ct al, from Grayson
county; May ct al. VS.. same, from Brazos
county; Peacock VS.. the State, from Van
Zandt county; Jacobs, Berheim & Co. VS..
Comfy ct al. from Hopkins county; Wood
vs. the State. from Hunt county; Lindsay
ct al. VS.; Moore ct al, from Kaufman
county; Wilkerson VS.. the State, from
Rockwell county; Wall VS.. the State, from
Rockwell county; Chicago, Texas & Next
can Central railway VS.. Ritter and wife,
from Dallas county; Vennost VS.. Docket,
from Washington county; dismissed; Davis
u Oates VS.. Leatherwood ct
al, from johnson, and Craddock
VS.. the State, from Dallas county, super
IDEAS and injunction perpetuated
The court has aUout fifty cases on the
docket and will clear the docket about De-
,ember LIST. 1t is of 81 ecial interest to at
to know that no further cases
'hould be sent up to he branch, but
be forwarded to Galvtston. For the
irst time since its organization the docket
s clear, and now cases. will be decided
within a month after they reacI the court.
TYLER, Nov. ~6.-[Special. 1.-The comis-
Iloners Of appeals atfirmei the following:
stone VS.. heirs of Stone, from - county;
1pCuOSI CT al. Vs. llOstIJlldl 81 al, from
Falls county; Pennell VS.. Holting, from
3astrop county; Decorsit ct al. vs.. Darby &
Rand, from WASHINGTON county; Robinson
IS. Carter & Kerr, from Grimes cotnty;
ireen VS.. Bear Bros. and Hersch
rom McLennan county; Fautress ct al. VS..
Andrews ct al, from Burnet county. Re-
'ersed and remanded: Bell VS.. Britton,
rom Grayson county; Yetteo ct al. VS..
Hudson ct al, from Tarrant county; Por-
er VS.. Cheromister, from Grayson county:
)utle ct al. VS.. Reed ct al. from Caldwell
ounty. Dismissed: Kaufman & Runge
=: Wicks, from Robertson county.
9he~sgpremo court does moi meet to-
Judge Watts left for home to-day to speak |
few days.