Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-11-11
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.
NOVEMBER TERA.l


MONDAY, November g. 1885.
| Court met at2p NJ. Chief Justice Morriso
presiding, Present--JuStices McKinstry. No
Kee and Myrick J. W. Mccarthy, Clerk H.
Finkler, Bailiff.
| County of San Mateo VS. Oullahan-On motion
of Allen, for petitioner, ordered that an alter
/ native writ issue herein returnable before til,
Court in bank on Monday, November 10th, q
! 10 A. NJ
Rooney vs. Marshall-On motion of McKune
| for petitioner, same order.
Marshall ct al VS.. Dunn ct al.-Metion OF Doc
! lin to advance cause granted; appellant TO be
| allowed ten days to file brief and respondent
ten days to reply; cause to be thereupon submit;
| ted.
! Butte County vs.. Boydstein ct al.-Motion OF
| Lusk for respondent, to dismiss appeal; re-
| spondent allowed ten days to file brief appel
| liant TO have ten days to reply, and respondent
| ten days TO reply thereto.
| People vs.. Treadwell-On motion of Harding,
ordered that appellant be allowed fifteen days
| to file brief, respondent fifteen days to reply,
and appellant ten days to reply thereto Coun-
sci for appellant allowed to withdraw record for
Lamet VS.. Miller-Motion by johnson to dis
miss appeal continued till Monday, November
10th
People VS.. Lampson-Continued till January
term, 1886.
People VS.. Otto-Same order
People VS.. Lee Gam-Same order.
People VS.. Brick-Argued tor Hart for appel
liant and Attorney General Marshall for respond
ent. Appellant allowed five days to file brief
and respondent five days to reply.
People VS.. DeWitt--Argued by Cutler for ap-
pellant and Swinford for respondent. Appellant
allowed ten days to file brief.
People VS.. Wong All Foo-Pursuant to stipula-
ton, appellant allowed fifteen days to file brief
respondent ten days to reply, and ten days to
appellant to reply thereto.
TUESDAY, November 10th.
People VS.. Edson-Argued by Delmas for ap-
pellant and Burchard for respondent. Five days
10 respondent to file brief.
,lar 4 Il ~.
appellant and AttOrney-General Marshall for
respondent. Respondent allowed five days to
file brief.
People vs. Freneh-On motion of Attorney
General, appellant allowed fifteen days to file
brief, and respondent fifteen days to reply.
EX-parte Ii Pratt, on habeas corpus-On mo-
ton of Johnson, for respondent cause ordered
submitted on briefs on file.
lIhe cases of Smith vs. Stockton and Copper
opolis Railroad Company, Menk VS.. Commercial
Insurance Company Sanderson VS.. Harling, Da-
wilson VS.. Deyine, Judkins VS.. Elliott and Mont
gomery VS.. Locke were ordered continued for
the session.
Kirby ct al. VS.. Superior Court of Nevada
County-Ordered submitted on briefs now on
file.
Lucas VS.. Richardson-same order.
Hoyt VS.. Nevada County Narrow-Gauge &. R.
CO.-Same order.
Mckay W. Joy-Same order
Wilson VS. Atkinson-Same order
Hagle VS.. Hagle-Same order
Bishop VS.. Fulkerth-Same order
l.
Chielovich VS.. Krauss ct al Same order
Goodman VS.. GriswOld-Same order.
Peasley VS.. McFadden ct al.-Sane order
Harlan VS.. Ely-Same order.
Thompson VS.. DOaksum ct al.-Same order
Golden State and Miners Iron Works VS.. Muir
Same order.
Cross VS.. Kitts-On motion of Reardon, re-
spondent allowed fifteen days to file brief and
appellant fifteen days to reply.
Swain ct al. VS.. Changers Union of San Joa-
quin County-On motion of Turner appellant
allowed fifteen days to file brief and respondent
fifteen days to reply.
Mckinney ct al. vs. Robertson motion of
Bond, appellant allowed ten DAYS to file brief
and respondent ten days to reply.
Mcdonald VS.. County of FL Dorado-Dropped
from calendar, to be restored only upon an order
of the Court.
Forbes VS.. County of FL Dorado-Same order.
Girdnerlet al. VS.. Beswiek-Appellant allowed
ten days to file brief, respondent ten days to re
ply, and appellant ten days to reply thereto.
The following members of the class of appli-
cants for admission to practice having been ex-
amined by Chief Justice Morrison touching
their learning and qualifications in the law, or
dered that they be and are hereby admitted to
practice as attorneys and counselors at law in
all the Courts of the State: d. w. Fox, C. D.
Dodge, W. II. Hill. J. +. Strong, J. E. Richard
son, W b. Nutter w J. Herrin. H Choynslsj
d. w. jerks and Victor L. Hicks.
People vs. Dick-On motion of Spencer, for
appellant, andd iminutiOn of record, ordered that
the Clerk of the lower Court send to this Court
copy of the proceedings before the committing
magistrate. Appellant allowed fifteen days to
file blief, and respondent fifteen days to reply.
Gates VS.. McLean-Argued by Hazen for APP
peIant and, Turner for respondent and sub
mtted.
Ross VS.. Brusie-Argued by Turner for re-
spOndent.
Murphy VS.. Bennett-Ordered submitted on
brief now on file.
Adjourned for the session.