The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-01-14
LIE sNrRENE CorRr.
convening Of sAe Ceart villa sexenfy~
thaa@ EmSes.

One Cases.
0LxMrfA Jan. 1s-TAe supreme court met In
regular session today. Present. Chief 1asssca
Thomas j. An3ers. and Judges John r. Huse
fruza Judge Ralph q nwnbar. stating that he
would arrive tomorrow
Ca motion og w. Lair Hill, Esq. Jarnes n
Howe. % seattle. was admitted 70 practice he
holds : certificate from the supreme court al
RR stewart 81 Sncqualmie. was sworn inaa
. aasllH
The chief sGstsce called for moginns an cases
fsora the original Third district. and the Arst
one annonnced was No. s66 -kenyen rs knIp0.
from SeAttis.
Hon. ". c. Jones' attorney general. Ia in Al.
tendance a. the court
The day was occupied in iisposing Of various
motions 20 dismiss aEd transfer cases TO kha
United states eourk
Sol smith. clerk: A. = AuSsxn. aennty clerk
arc erier; William KollawhaSh and Robert
Stewart. bailiffs, are the minor oa6eials Of the
court
The titles of ail cases nov anon the supreme
court calendar arc as follows. Augustine q
Webster vs. Thatcher: Andrews rs King County
et aLs Ah Linn W. The Territory OF Washing
ton; Baxter & Hanson vs. The United States:
Burns vs.. Conner: Rellingham Bay. Etc, r. n
co. " strand: Bnrch VS. Taylor Rnrch W.
Moore Burcb Va. Clover Rrogfun vs.. wit CO ala
Rrotten VS.. Langert. Chamberlain vs. winas
Cline vs. AithheIi. ColamhsA & Palouse \. y.
Co. " Farrinwton. Coxweil -. Hogan ek ala
Corporation Of The Cath ole Bixhop cf NexqnAiiy
" 6ihhon ct al nainke vs. DYER ek a. Ellis W.
PomeFoy Improvement Company. Fgederiekx
vs. the territory of Washington. Freygew vs.
Craig and Northern Paeinc Raiireaa Company.
Getiiis vs. Parrish. Geaey vs.. Tacoma Lumber
ing Company. Cover vs. Cover, Gowing va
Cock. Hawks vs. Notaw et al, Hnxs vs., 6}eddis,
Joe FRANK vs.. the United States. Johnson w.
tho territory oE Washington. johnson vs. KSea-
HES. Kenyon ct nj. vs. North Pacific Ium hAFina
and Manufacturing Company. kenyon 70
knipe. kenyon vs.. Squire, Kenyon vs.. squire ea
al. knon vs. the Puget sound Cooperative
Company. King county IS. Hill ct a.. A. =.
King VS. nwaeo Railway and Nayiga-
ion Company, IilienthRi & Ca. n.
Mcciaine vs. Territory of Washington. Miller ~
Pincms. Mehnche VS. tho city Of Tacoma Nc.
williams estate w. Mann q Co.. Meeker VS..
GardeIle McGArfiin vs.. Holmes McNAir. city
marshall vs. 0strander Noffhef Pacific railroad
Company vs. Holmes, Northern Pacific railroad
Company ". o'Bnen. Oregon Railway A Navi-
cation OSanreny vs.. Decres, Oregon Railway a
Navigatioa Company w Smalleys Paxton vA
DanfaFth, paEnelI Va. the ToFritory Of Washing
ton Paxton vs.. Daniell, sayward vs. Carlson,
StrAtton ". the Territory, scrammon vs. Ward.
execntrix: SIishy vs.. Aldridge a Hoy, Sheehanva.
Levy steamship Idaho Va the Tuifed States Sc.
aieo Manufacturing Co. ys. BiafnaneF, Thorpe a
Hale vs.. The 7enam Ditch Coz Tacoma Lumber.
ing Co w. Tho city of Tacoma, Trip W.
MAgnus, Taylor VI. Osborne. Territory VS.
Stewart, United stetes w Rudd ef 81. United
states ys Holman, United states w Rudd 81 al.
wilkins Va wilkins. White VS., the Territory,
wilkins 4 wilkins va kilenshurg Water Co.
Western Mill aud Lumber Co. VS.. blanchard &c
al Total number IL