San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-05-04
FEDERAL COURT.

ne new leueTdl cur JuOuSO PiCSchVou q
very lively aspect this morning, IL being
the opening day of the May term Of the
U. S. district court. At precisely ten
o'clock this morning, Judge Maxey
opened court, and the U. $. grand jury
was empanelled. Judge Maxey, in charg-
ing them, defined the jurisdiction of the
U. s. court, calling their attention to the
offenseS against the postal laws, pointing
out the coinage, and passing, Of spurious
coin, the violation Of the lottery and in
ternal revenue statutes. In regard TO the
internal revenue, he said there were some
offenSes which ought not TO come into the
court. He referred TO the petty little
smuggling cases which were so common
along the Rio Grande, which amounted to
nothing and the punishment of which
would have no effect upon the offenders.
When the grand jury retired for inves-
tigation, the petit Jury was empanelled
and excused until Tuesday morning at
ten o'clock, after which Judge Maxey
read number of opinions.
The court room is large, light and airy,
situated on the third floor Of the building
1t will be large enough for all common
purposes, but like the old room, too small
for the public in any case Of interest or
Importance. Benches should be provided
in the halls or offices for the witnesses
and others, who are now compelled to
stand about the hallway until they are
called.
The following are the cases in the U. s.
district court, and dates OF hearing thus
far set for them:
April 5th: q. s. VS.. Mexican National
R. r. Co., importing foreign lobor, three
cases.
u. s. VS.. Santiago Sanchez, importing
foreign labor, five cases.
U. s. VS.. c. L. Fowzer, importing foreign
labor.
u. S. VS.. the Electric Light and Power
company; importing foreign labor.
u. s. VS.. A. &. Pickett, Jr.; import
ing foreign labor.
q. s. VS.. Joaquin Villages; Importing
foreign labor, three cases.
U. s. VS.. A. X. Davis; importing foreign
labor.
q. S. VS.. Paul Comolti; importing for
W. S. Outlet VS.. Mexican National Con-
struction company; damages.
May 18th, w. II. Hausberger, VS. Jas. L.
Reaside, and Chas. Baine, breach of con-
Thomas Hanson VS. Martha A. Rogers,
WIN. Rust VS.. Otto l.. Threadskill, tres
pass.
w. H.. Fessender, ct al VS.. Coleman,
Fulton Pasture company, trespass, TWO
cases.
son VS. John c. Fitzpatrick; trespass.,
ct al; trespaSs.
George L. Bondy, VS.. the Dolores Land
and Cattle company; trespass.
The United States VS.. Sarah B. Whit
field. and J. A. Whitfield: suit on
Geo. H. Fontain VS.. Dolores Land
and Cattle company; trespass.
w. II. Wordsworth ct al, VS.. G. X. Oil
yer; trespass.
limited, VS.. j. W. Glass: trespass.
J. R. Winberly VS.. W. FL. Cochran; tres
pass.
c. c. Morrero VS.. VIM. G. Hughes;
trespaSs.
Daniel Sullivan VS.. J. A. Bennett; dam
ages.
Thompson Houston Electric Company.
VS.. Laredo Improvement Company; DANG
ages.
April 20; Henry s. Lindenbaum VS.. A.
P. Suits and Rio Grande Bridge and
Tramway Co.; damages.
b. +. Simpson ct al, VS.. John II. Jones,
ct al. damages.
The New York and Texas Land Co.,
limited, VS.. II. c. Tordy and Cherry Creek
Cattle Co.; treSpaSs.
April 21: Woodbridge Carey VS.. s. A.
Crosstown railway company; damages.
April %: j. H. and q. NJ. Boster VS..
Charley Schreiner, ct al; debt.
A. p. Rachel VS.. r. q. Dunn, ct al;
libel.
April 25: Geo. Bliss VS.. VIM. Masterson,
ct al; trespass.
Augusta Kercher VS.. Peter Friesch;
trespaSs.
Debritte and Masbine VS.. H. Selig-
man, ct al; treSpasS.
April %: r. w. j. w. Minis VS.. Jose
Maria, ct al; damages.
April 81: Mariana c. c. Scudder VS.. /.
e. G. n. r. r. Co. ct al; damages.
April %: State of Texas VS.. ). M.
Swenson; suit on land, cases.