Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-11-27
SUPREME COURT.
IN BASE

MONDAY November 26. 1885.
Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present,
stein, j.; Mcfarland, j.: Paterson, j.; Works, J.
Spencer, Clerk; Washburn, Bailiff.
| Central Irrigation District VS.. De Lappe, etc.
| II satisfactorily appearing that the above en-
titled cause involves important public interests,
II is therefor by consent of parties ordered that
| the same be placed upon the calendar, and sub
mitted, with appellant thirty days to fl e brief,
respondent thirty days to reply, appellant ten
| days to reply thereto. Further ordered, that
Stanton L. Carter be allowed thirty days 10 file
| brief as Amicus CuriR."
| 12,754-Mauldin VS.. Clark ct ai-On motion OF
Hart, ordered respondent be allowedthirty days
10 file brief appellant ten days TO reply, cause to
| be thereupon submitted.
| 1902 -hoult ct al. VS.. Baldwin-On motion
ordered appellant be allowed twenty davs to file
| brie-. cause to be thereupon submitted
| l2,2f-Finney vs. Curtis-On motion of Car
ter, and pursuant to stipulation, ordered appel
liant be allowed twenty days TO file brief re-
| spondent twenty days to reply, cause to be
| thereupon submitted.
| l2,244-Learned ct al. vs. Castle-On motion OF
| Garber ordered that cause be continued and be
heard in San Francisco on the first Monday OF
December 1883.
12.3i2-Hu;son VS.. Woodbridge p District etc;
| IL, ,47l-Baker VS.. Ducker ct al-On motion of
Budd, ordered respondent be allowed thirty
days to file brief appellant thirty days TO reply,
cause to be thereupon submitted.
l2,406-Anderson VS.. California Steam Naviga-
| ton Company-Ordered continued for the term
| l2,l59-Burkett vs.. Burkett-On motion of
Budd, ordered appellant be allowed thirty days
to tle brief, respondent thirty days to reply,
| cause to .e ihereupor submitted.
| l2,692-Wilhoit et al. VS.. Bryant ct al.-On mo-
| tion of Budd, ordered appellant be allowed
thirty days to file brief, respondent thirty days
70 reply appellant twenty days to reply thereto,
cause 10 be the eupon submitted
| II lb-Swain vs. Stockton Savings and Loan
soeiety--O1 motion OF Budd. ordered appellant
be allowed twenty days to file brief, respondent
| twenty days to reply, appellant ten DAYS 10 re-
ply thereto, cause to be lhereupon submitted
| l2SQ2-Sharp W. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. to
stipulation ordered appellant be allowed thirty
ply, appellant thirty days to reply thereto, cause
| TO be thereupon submitted.
| l2so3-Baker ct al. VS.. Firemans Fund Insur-
ance Company-On motion of Good. ordered
| respondent be allowed thirty days TO file brief
appellant twenty days TO reply, cause to be
thereupon submitted.
l2s5i-simpson ct al. VS.. McCarthy-on mo-
briefs on file.
l2s60-Pool VS. Clifford ct al-On motion Of
Budd, ordered appellant be allowed ten days to
! nle brlei, respondent twenty days to reply, ap-
| pellant ten. days 10 reply thereto, cause 10 be
| thereupon submitted.
| 12S6i-Smith VS.. Keagle- Pursuant to stipula
| tion, ordered that the cause be resubmitted
upon the briefs filed in People VS.. Board of su.
| pervisors of the City and County of San Fran.
| cisco, No. 1856 heretofore filed in this Court
l2s9i-West VS.. Crawford-On motion of Budd
ordered appellant be allowed thirty days to file
brief, respondent thirty days to reply, appellant
ten days to reply thereto, cause to be thereupon
submitted.
| 12,279-Watson vs. California Iron and Smelt-
/ ing Company; l2SS0-Stevens VS. California
| Iron and Smelling Company-on motion of
benson, ordered appellant be allowed thirty
days To hle brief, respondent thirty days to re-
ply, appellant twenty days to reply thereto
cause 10 be thereupon submitted.
| l29ll-Estate of Comprehension motion of
Carter, ordered appellant be allowed thirty days
I" fiie bief. respondent thirty days to reply ap.
peiiaut twenty days 10 reply thereto cause to be
| therenpOn submitted
| Adjourned fiI the session.
IN CHAMBERS.
| l ,7s9-Penrose VS.. Calkin,-Judgment and
| order denying the motion for new tIisl are re-
versed. WORKS i
| We concur: Thornton. J.; Paterson. j.: Searls.
| C. j.: MeFarlsnd. r.
l2,s09-Jenness VS.. BoTen-Rehearing denied.
| HE COURT.
| 1.SS9-McCormick VS. sheridan-It is ordered
| that James Mem. shafter, CHARLES r. Parker
| and Frederick H. Waterman the individuals
| comprising the firm of shafter Parker K Water.
man, attorneys and cOunselors-atlew appear
before the Court, in its uIt-room in the city os
| san Francisco, on tie 10th day of December,
| lSSS, at ~ A. NJ. then there to show cause why
| they and each of them should not be punished
| Tor contempt II is further oriered that copy
| OF this order be secved by the Balliff of this
Court upon each of said attorneys al least five
| days prior to said 10th day of December, 1855.
| The COURT.
| ing granted. THE CoTrpT
n,ti9-Vsn Drachenfelsvs Doolittle-Rehear-
! ing denied