Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-08
SUPREME COURT.
IN AANK.

LAHh.
"WEDNESDAY, February 5, 1890
Desmond VS. Fauss ct al.--Appellant's time to
file and serve transcript on srppeal extended IN
til five days after the decislCu of this Court on
respondents motion to dismiss aaid appeal.
Beilbron ct al. VS.. Campbell, Judge Ordered
that plaintiffs appear on the 14th II February
and show cause before the Court Why the de-
tendant should not have leave 70 file his
amended answer Hearings in the Meantime
stayed.
MeLear vs.. Hapgood- Appellant allowed
twenty days additional time within Which
to file trsr S ript on appeal herein
DEPARTMENT ONE.
Tatum ct al. VS. Thompson-Pursuant to stip-
ulation on file, ordered cause be continued to
foot OF calendar
By consent ordered respondent be allowed
fifteen days to file brief, appellant ten days TO
reply
of the death of c. Flood, ordered thai Robert
Ewing, NJ. Plum and ]. Y. Coleman, as surViy-
ing members OF the firm OF Ewing, Plum "
o. Brien, be substituted as respondents IN place
and stead of said deeedent; cause stand sub
mitted upon briefs on file.
Scammon VS.. Wells, Fargo d Co.-Respondent
allowed fifteen days to file brief appellant ten
days TO reply.
Roach, administrator, vs. Caraffs administers
tor, etc.-Appellant allowed ten days to file re-
ply trief.
DEPARTMENT TWO.
Nagle vs. McBIurray-Ordered that the judg-
ment and order herein be affirmed.
MCGEE VS.. Sweeney ct al.-On motion OF
Smith, ordered cause be submitted upon briefs
on file.
Mayer VS.. salazar, Jr.-ordered respondent be
allowed ten days to file brief. appellant ten
People ex rel. Hacke VS.. Hibernia 5. and L.
Society Ordered appellant be allowed twenty
days &c. file brief respondent I'VE days to reply.
Crawford VS.. Independent Stove and Pipe
Works-Cause argued by Lawrence for appel
liant, McGraw for respondent and submitted
Ingermsn VS.. Moore ct al.-Ordered respond
ent be allowed ten days to file brief, appellant
twenty Gays to reply.
IN BANK.
THURSDAY, February G, 1890.
People ex rel. Morgan VS.. Hayne ct al-Judg-
ment and order affirmed. Ordered that remit
thur issue forthwith.
Ex parte Dasey Belts on habeas eorpus-or-
dered that a writ issue herein as prayed, return
able on the 18th day of February at 10 a. NJ.
DEPARTMENT oyB.
Hayes VS.. De Young-By consent of counsel,
ordered that cause be continued to foot of calen-
dar, February 18Th.
Harrison vs. Casebolt-By consent of counsel,
Judgment herein affirmed
Grant VS.. Sheerin-Appellant be allowed one
day within which to file brief respondent four
days TO reply.
Fallon ct al. vs. Brittan-Ihere being no ap-
pearance nor points and authorities on file fo1
appellant decree and order herein affirmed.
Emhoff ct al. VS.. McManr-There being no
appearance for appellant, judgment and order
herein affirmed with per cent. damages.
City and County of san Francisco VS.. straut-
Argued and submitted.
DEPARTMENT Two
McMenomy vs. Talbot ct al Appellant al
lowed twenty days from January 30th to file
brief respondent ten days to reply.
MeAIenomy VS.. Band-0rdered cause be sub
mitted upon briefs on file.
Denis, Jr. VS.. Union Mutual Insurance Com
pany-Oldered appellant be allowed twenty
days TO file brief.
Joshua Hendy Machine Works VS. American
Steam B. ms. Co.-Ordered cause be submitted
upon briefs on file.
Walsh VS.. Walsh-Argued and submitted.
Friedrich VS.. Demartini-Ordered stricken
from the calendar, TO be restored only on notice
and motion.
Phelansys. DeMartin ct al.-On motion an6
suggestion OF diminution of record, ordered tina
appellant be allowed to file certified copy 0
the notice OF appeal.