The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-12-31
<HE SUPERIOR COURT
x,aubIes Of the Seattle Con-
struction Company.
: rwo wAaRlno FACTIONS.
q. a.,ns she night Of xanaias RE-
u.,ss-asw ssIss Matters
in Probate.


$3.50 uislgh VS. Eici in the superior
- claim Is intervention Sled later
i s. Eaxens J jordan. tbs litigation IS
4 krskas solloNss
a. sanrga.at OF Robert II. Hopkins
80. - Ssatlle Construction Company.
- knoxn IS the feaier Avenue
-. Inc alleges that the defendant Is ia
- Is he Pacific Rolling NH Com
8 de snm 81 sT,z4l.0s. Ths defend
Z saesI On - prOnliss0ry nose for
w Il. gwen july II, 1850, and due IN
L. nnsstfss. 30 rArt oi the note or prin-
81 80 sgt been paid. The complaint
80 shss the defendant company has
800 lfs8ebtednees 81 sz55, 90. and al IT,
sssrs psyfng property has been mort
g. IL eseaFe p&yunentof the seid bonded
,ltedness, that lEe total income Of TIE
srslsnss i not sufficient 20 pay the
.e.tses expenses Of the road or the csyst
.sssssayy repairs 70 the machinery and
smssts. There Is now large amount
ssnnd interest nnon the eOmpaay's
4sl Indebtedness due - tlse holders Of
A6nas and nov unpaid The COM
81 turtheg alleges that the defendant
"a l&1H&HN4zkt 4ftN4 AfAAAA4N4 &AE NAkh&+tNT
ksa heretofore referred 90 there il dns
3 note made IN favor Of Cherry,
Nsss4 noree for sl,is2eg. whgoh was
Ena6sFfsd % the plaintiff. making alto
fbsf an indebtedness og fs.es3.95. The
assssnant asks that L. u. Bfnns be APP
sssa receiver. and that all receipts over
above aeeessaFs expenses be applied
a. lIo1fsiatson OF the debt
De claim Of Intervention in the suit, as
losih BY The attorneys for Or. Eugene
lvsdon. alleges that IN December. 1888.
Construction Company executed In
H. 81 Dexter Horton q Go. $3.50 90 in
nas IL 81 go denominations, bearing 8
inens. interest, payable semi.annuaiiy
~ National PARK bank, 81 New York
h Tne bands were secured BY Dextss
! sfea 4 60. by . con7eyAnee 70 them OF
haes Of street railways owned by the
sadAnt company. including tie fesier
eels. Jackson aad Second street roads,
Nihef sitA Figilss-og-way granted, lands.
bs5ises. ETC.
lse plaintiff sets forth that be Is the
fsaa 81 flfty-fiHe bonds. The first set 81
sonz. being attached 10 bonds 8 10 81,
ssslse. we're due Jane q, 1859. and
20 tse coupons Sure presented at New
Ea, payment npou them was refused.
Jordan, together with other owners,
lzfea that under toe conditions Of the
sfEsge they have a lien on the property.
ne claim goes on 70 state that the road
primarily IN 4 good condition and that
Hesipls are sufficient % pay the interest
shs mortgage bonds. which would hsye
BE sgFiied 10 that purpose had It not
sen lpF tbs gross mlsmanaRenent Of the
~ Is ihe trustees IA canoeing ohligA-
whleh we're If minor Importance
szFsssd 10 the interest due on ths bonds
Jordan also declares that the roAd a
~ lnseivent ana Il unable 10 meet the
sssas due % lss first mortgage indebted.
- He further says that in addition 60
bonded Indebtedness Of Sas0. 600 there
slsbs OF 80 -. aFi that the eompany's
feFty + hesng injured oy reason Of be-
hsffasssa by ils creditors. In his
SO Dg. Jordan asks that Dexter
1sEson & Go. be made parties 70
saih lie alleges in sap
Of this that there Is due
ifoga chs defendant ss.paa. and that
ss&1 Horton should properly be brought
~ satisfactory and complete settle
pal u The question 81 issue. Or. Jordan
that & + Whittier be appointed re.
Ess q The company. lie ahjeets 80 T..
sFnAs. who Is named for receiver by lhe
SnA painiif, on the gfouad that he Is
MAY Ct the company ava one Of the
ssses AGAINST whom be has made aliega-
sa Interpretations Of funds; fur.
= slse. that Ar. Bruins Is q bfother-sn-
= Z, Sander. president Of the com
sy Nhom D., Josdan ehasges with pnr-
kine she claims in dispute al q discount
turning them over 30 Hopkins, the
alsA n the sait. In conclusion il il
~ q The court that he give the receiver
leNsS 10 operate the road and Apply
Nuipts IS above stated.
1gRe9gkF eRNpeRrp.
9adge Iieasenberg rendered a Judgment
y case q Daniel Z, Davis agsinss
- / Thatcher if favor II The defend.
sais vas brought 80 recover Si6a on
esss q services performed, said amount
r. balance ane Of $50 The answer
'sssssa plaintiffs allegation as 70 sums
ha sahtsg, and upon evidence produced
case vas decided ln the asteBaants
~ a hssssotaFs stated.
HIyeseE GRANTED.
asseFee q absolute divorce was allowed
= case q AaaoF q Gilmore against hts
Aaa 3 eiiE4ors, uPon The grounds og
AA drunkenness. The decree was
spcn TIE nnding II the referees
~ sassh vas Sled yesterday.
sKw sgsFs uAsn.
esnetli, Parser &go. have been made
@saats n sast For the recovery q
.s GA merchandise sola shpIa by
@Ftsfssesm, eao sues ia Fwgaves 4
ssSssa. slsd IS q secan8 cause 81
bszngs SUR 81 recover S74gs due ea
sesf n0ts made Ia lavar al Preston,
- 4 iAsnwofto y DO Endorsed il to
asla 1sasmeai IS Asked 10 tAs
- ssfnuasneest by +. \. MeFaafen
fsf $50 due aa taa pEomtssasy
Vsa - " = Mccoanesi. Parker &
ave. y 4. W Meiehaesl an,S ]. u.
sen. she afterwards assigned 10
go q Zoe sssexe sulas against Nc
- tAFksr s Ga. attachments mere
te9fs sse seyeras aasv attach
- 'e ieslos, soHss 81 Walsh w.a -
- sAss g ) q Nsg3 araiuss George ".
- Nss asea ea an apg~Al frogu
~ Rivers coart TIE sait wAs
~ tise FsooYSFg ~ = balance due
Il fse'asss%sfy ueRe e SAtl Judgement
- fsE s-ii ia taveT ~ piasnua.
- asssssea defendant sppease,t
tssaa lsg ssessae " IAssnhaeh
- S5a tnam s. h. AFssagsl.
= = aue "a laAeE rsrE0rns IN
gsAas sad speo asstaoas sar saa
a1aaai's house.
@tAFs uogsF NAysxRs.
49, 9. sale nas Nl..l h, a.. ..a... -