Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-06-12
Dill VS.. Palmer.
department No. 4-musson, ).

Clark VS.. Clark-Default of defendant
vacated and set aside. Defendant granted
twenty days to answer.
Whiting VS.. Wilkes Statement on mo.
tion for new trial settled and allowed
and motion submitted.
Lichtenberger VS.. Smith--Transferre
to Department No. 2.
Tanner VS.. Chaffee ct al.-Ten days
further time granted defendant to plead.
In re- petition Of Pasadena Real Es-
tate Exchange Continued until juno Is.
Clark VS.. Russell-Settlement OF state
ment continued till June IS.
Azusa Water Development Irrigating
Co. VS.. Duarte Mutual Irrigating Co. =
Continued to June IS, and three days to
plaintiff to file counter complaint.
Lombard vs.. Smith-Ten days further
time from Juue 10th TO defendant to an
Bwer.
Snow vs.. Patton-Ten days further
time to defendant to plead.
Young ct al. vs.. South Side Irrigating
Company-Demurre to complaint over
ruled at end OF twenty days from date
preliminary injunction to issue, upon
execution of proper undertaking Of $i0,-
900. Ten days to answer.
Young vs. d. McKinley-Motion to
dissolve preliminary injunction denied.
Marriott VS.. s. McKinley--Same.
Cartwright VS.. Eutwistle-Same.
Williams vs.. Hanria--Same
O'Shea vs.. Guerado-Plaintif's de-
murrer overruled.
Clark VS.. City OF Observation-Disclosures
continued to June 18th.
atDavenport VS.. ketchley-Demurrer
overruled; ten DAYS to answer.
Weir vs.. Tucker ct al.-Demu rrer
stricken from calendar.
Mitchell VS.. Arrison-Demurrer over
ruled; ten days TO answer.
Austin VS.. Fairview Developing Com.
pany-Demurrer sustained; ten days to
amend.
Niles ct al. vs.. Valla ct al.-Motion
continued to June 18th.
Lewis vs. Lswis-Same.
Hancock vs. Plummer--Continued to
June 18th; :30P NJ
Habenerht vs. Bell--Demurrer con-
tinued to June 18th.
Desmond vs.. Tourney-Same.
Hamilton VS.. Hazard-Same.
Smith vs.. Massie-Same.
Davis vs.. Davis--Same.
Avis VS.. Kalisha--Same.
English vs.. Hickey-Motion to strike
out demurrer and answer to complaint
submitted; one day to plaintiff to present
points and authorities.
Post vs.. Mccullough - Demurrer to
complaint sustained; ten days to amend.
Rummel vs.. Smith-Demurrer con-
finued to June 18th.
Breaky ys. Glendale Hotel Company
Demurrer taken under advisement.
Los Angeles County vs.. Gumoechio-
Demurrer continued to June 18th.
Harmon VS.. Lane ct al.-Same.
Grow We. Crow-Demurre overruled
for want of presentation; ten days given
to answer.
Terry vs.. Ward ct al.--Demurrer con-
tinued to June 18th.
Mccullough vs.. McCullough-Demur-
xer overruled; ten days to answer.
Los Angeles National Bank VS.. Will
ANS ct al.--Defendants' motion to quash
summons denied; PLAINTIFF g motion to
amend summons granted; defendants
except to above ruling; ten days granted
to answer after serving of amended sum
mons notice waived.
Tonner ct al. vs.. Dem-Continued to
June IS.
Foley vs.. Observation-Disclosures con-
tinued to June IS.
Knight vs. Williams-Demurrer under
advisement.
Smith ct al. vs.. Baker-Dsmurrer con-
tipued to June lS.
Conaut w. McFarland-Demurrer un-
der advisement.
Perrett vs. Kevaue-Demurrer over
ruled ten days to answer.
Hall VS.. Williaips-Same.
Stafford VS.. Klass-Demurrer stricken
from cal lendar.
w. II. Perry L. 4 NJ. Co. VS.. McCo-
mas-Demurrer oyerfuled; ten days to
answer.
In re arrangement Of trial calendar:--
The following cases were disposed OF as
follows, to witt
Figueroa VS.. Lidell--Passed for the
session.
Dunlap vs.. steere- Continued to June
90.
Haskell vs.. Knight-Cause passed for
the session.
Abbott vs.. johnson ct al. = Cause
passed for the session.
Dominguez vs. Aguerre Same.
Leilingwell vs. LefIingwell--Stricken
from calendar.
Burlingame VS.. Ehardt-Passed for the
session.
Gage VS.. Hubbell-Same.
Dimmick vs.. Chapman-Stricken from
calendar.
The following cases were transferred
from Department No. 3 and set for trial
in this Department. az follows, to wit;
Moriarty w, Calori-Set ior June 10, a'
il0A. NJ.