The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-12-24
TIIE SUPERIOR COURT
f,isree Appointed in the VAIL
berg Divorce Case.
|,fyfssL JUDGMENTS FOUND.
g r,e.. seed Yor 5000 Dsmages-
sss old cAareh Case Appealed
Other Matters.

- 5nsuncsson exc 81 Ksnw8Td Il Carry
...iest fhe CITY OF Seattle and the " ash
s'.,sn Investment Company was argued
- JnaRe Llschtenberg last evening ct
& aselock.
re ease Is One IN which the platntifis,
e srs liquor dealers, sought 20 prevent
= div fron. ejeetihg them from the prem
= s<iose uay /, the ansisatlon set By the
s..sza on alI tent permits.
- Washington Investment Company
ks.shs he property. which Il 90 the NORTH
- esFnsr Ell Cherry and second streets,
ss.zes e The lease. and on which they
- = eject q building On this account
- essy. which had prevIcacty revoked the
s>,<.k served notice October =. giving
| Z. t.slisins thirty days 70 racAte. At the
- 4 that time, the order not being conn
- With. sIeetglent proceedings we're be-
-. bas The city was stopped By an In
ktzsea.
is slsogs was made. previous TO the lit
,..sAn by tie Washington Investment
ss.ssny. 20 buy the plaintiffs lease. but
!. srrtsnent could be arrived az. as they
ssssss 5000 FOR the REIMBURSEMENT Of
~ rEzl,ss np 20 Nay I. and the DESCENDANT
esnpAny. desmInR the figaree too high,
s<Estslsons wsFe brought 70 q standsfill.
Re eItg,s position Is this: 1t had passed
. sxnegal order 10 the effect that tent
seSsses saonld be revoked whsrs they In
trssrsa wish or Delayed the erection OF sub.
s.anszal baiIdings, notwithstanding the
81 nat gfs resolution allowing tents 10 re-
xsla Standing until May is also In effect
rs osjeet Il the order was 10 encourage
t1lIdiag. without compelling delays until
RFiak
TAe plkInsiiIs complain that they are be-
hx dEscsiminated against. They aver that
as nty had no legal right 10 revoke their
ut sfmis IN the face OF the passage Of the
nmsssaon ordinance, and &c the same time
s.ozsag others 20 stand. They alleEe that
ag are making q profit Of 81 so
aaathly at their buaineas, and as the
Washington Investment Company did not
uras 10 their terms on the sale of their
sa@, that the city has no right 20 eject
ih<m before May l. J. H. Metcall APP
pnfsd for the plaintiffs aud City Attorney
sE<ftaon represented the city. The case
W. taken under adxisement
oTHga couRr MATTEgs.
h the superior cosiFt today Judge IAch-
snsRfg rendered judgement by default
he case Of Paxton & Gallagher AGAINST
fYdnsy s Elder. giving the plaintiff s6S207
o. 81 action brought for recovery OF belt.
Ksesesf +. simpson vas appointed q
nieses 70 take testimony ia the divorce
snlt Of Hans G. waiilberR against Tngebuy
Washers.
The suit which was brought BY j. Das-
tsss 81 al. against George Iiot Ell al, an
triion 70 fec0yer q debt from the defend
snia, and on whose property logEers' lien
vm placed, was heard and decision given.
lasssment Sas rendered ia favored Joseph
fsflRan for 5000. j. Dastous for sf2.3a.
- = Prout for xiiS.4s. As 20 the other
fslnsliEs The cause was dismissed.
The wris Of haheas corpus applied for By
tae attorneys cf Matthew Ayra, ans Of the
I've msn arrested for having kit 81 burg
lars tools n their possession, was granted
and ordered fetnsnable today 1T / O'Clock
n IA.
sait was brought by Charles Erstsom
against James Day and ". Day, q logglng
AFIs At nay stasion. The plaintiff alleges
Sat on September II he vas severely in
lufsd By reason Of log falling upon him,
dae entirely b the earelessness Of the de-
isndank james Day. Damages are asked
n Iae sum Of satso for injuries received
a1d US - for radical attendance.
An appssl suit from Justice Rivers
eoeft. u the cause Of John II. Baird
sgsahst John 4. Richardson, was 1iiea,
wherein The plaintiff was given Judgment
y ne sum Of sSs and costs on an action
tfonKhi 20 recover the value OF a horse
shiea had been placed IA the defendants
ea1e and Who afterwards appropriated the
salmh to his own use. and refused 20
aallFsr 4 20 The nlalatin.
boad for siEn was fled with II. c.
haxter and 5. kloeber as sureties.
TIE suit Of II. u. Langaker, executive Of
We estate Of Mary a. Longaksr, against
= ~ Bennett. and known as the church
@sEins house suit. wherein action Was
s'esghf by The plaintiff to eject the de-
aiAiant on the ground that gambling was
ssiaE carried ON in the house, and which
Va sfied BY Justice Rivers and verdict
Siaefed IN favor Of the defendant vas
s'ss Yesterday GA an appeal from the
hxer eeart