Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-12-30
SUPERIOR COURTS.

SUPERIOR COURTS.
SATURDAY, December 20, 1888.
Department No. 1-Chency, J.
People vs.. Erastus Hankins-Defend
ant sentenced to San Quentin for fiv'
years for manslaughter.
Court adjourned until January 9TH.
Department Ne. 2-CIark. J.
Estate of e. A. Hall-Continued tt
January 18th.
Estate of P. w. Thompson-Aceoun
settled and distribution ordered al
prayed for.
Estate of G. Mulcahy-Will admitted
to probate.
Estate of M. Shuler-Letters of admin
istration granted.
Estate of John Conar-Continued tt
January End.
Estate of M. Schwartz-Continued tc
January End.
Estate of f. w. Osterhout-Letters O
administration granted.
SGtton vs.. Lockwood-Dismissed.
Department Nh. 3 3--O'MelvenY, j.
In re estate OF Phil Lauth-Settlement
of final statement and distribution taken
under advisement until Wednesday
January End.
A. Becker vs. Geo. H. Beach ct al
Decree of foreclosure and sale ordered in
favor of plaintiff, and the sum of 1000
fixed as reasonable attorneys fee.
Williams vs. Williams-Set for q NJ.
Monday.
d. A. McDougall VS.. F. G. Howes-
Motion to strike out allowed: five days to
amend.
Wetherman VS. Goodman-Statement
presented by counsel and set for hearing
on Saturday, January 9th.
Baker & Hamilton vs.. j. I. Richard
son-Ten days further time to plead.
O'Shea vs.. Guirado-By consent this
cause is continued for the session.
Toll vs. Douglass-Submitted by plain
tiff and taken under advisement, with
two days leave to the defendant to file
points.
De Luna vs.. Southern Pacific Railroad
Demurrer sustained, with leave to
plaintiff to amend.
Los Angeles Plan Company VS.. d. F..
Donigan-Demurrer overruled for want
of presentation five days 10 answer.
John Skillman vs.. M. E. Clanton-Ten
days further time granted defendant to
plead.
Kelleher ct al. VS.. Creciat-Argument
on motion to dissolve injunction begun !;
continued to Wednesday, January I'd, at
2P.N.
SET FOR MONDAY.
Ruiz We. Guiol-Account.
Williams vs. Williams-Divorce.
Briggs vs. Briggs-Submitted on briefs !;
/, 2 and days for filings.
Beaudry vs.. Knox-Continued for the
session.
Dryden vs. Crawfofd-Continued for
the session.
Cole VS.. Cole-Leave given to file
amended answer
Harrison VS.. Delano-Findings and
judgment ordered prepared and sub
mitted on briefs in accordance with opin-
ion from bench.
New Cases.
On the 9th of November, 1887, W. H.
Anderson and D. w. G. Franklin
founded the Pacific Shoddy Works, the
former furnishing the capital and the
latter the building site and experience.
1t now develops from complaint filed
in the Superior Court by the former that
the city of Los Angeles has claim to the
lot on which the works are located, that
franklin enjoys such benefits as have
accrued from the investment of the CAPT.
tai, and that the plaintiff has nothing for
the "a, 600 he invested in the business
but the experience, and that is why he
prays for dissolution of the part
nership, for an accounting and for
the appointment of receiver. The
allegations set forth that the defendant
represented that he would donate a lot
on North Truman street and run the
business for half the profits. The plain
tiff, believing him responsible, furnished
the capital, and the works were started,
but the plaintiff alleges that he has since
discovered that the city owns the lot and
that the defendant merely roped him
into the partnership for the purpose of
getting the use of his capital. The
plaintiff thinks he has been grievously
defrauded. He alleges that the defend
ant has conducted the business solely to
his own interests, and appropriated at
least $500 of the firms money to his
private use, besides allowing 500 worth
of stock to be damaged by the late
rains, and threatening personal violence
to the plaintiff if he undertook to move
the works as per order Of the city auth
critics.
L. ]. Rose has brought suit against the
estate of N. R. Vail, deceased, for 81 900
with interest from November 21, 1882.
Vail, who was then at Total Wreck, Ari-
zona, claimed to own 37,500 shares of
stock in the "49" mine, and offered to
sell him one-half of his interest therein
for $4,000. He accepted the proposition
and forwarded Mr.. Vail $4,000 which
was receipted for by mail, but notwith-
standing the fact that repeated demands
were made for the certificates of stock,
from that time to within month of Mr..
Wallis death, the certificates were never
delivered. The administrator of the
estate has declined to recognize the
validity of the claim, which accounts for
the bringing of the suit.
O. B. Carter has commenced a fore
closure suit against Julie s. Mackenzie
and James S. Mckenzie, on account OF
two promissory notes of 1880 each, Sc
cured by mortgage on lot 20, in the
Bruping tract, this city.
James Ellis has filed suit against
Charles j. Hackett ct al, to forclose
mortgage on lot II, block LOG, Bellevue
Terrace tract, for the security of a claim