The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1892-04-07
Circuit Court Proceedings.

Hon. VIM. Mclaughlin on the bench.
Following are the proceedings OF the
Court:
LAW ORDERS.
A certificate of Incorporation was granted to
the Covington Ice and Cold Storage Company,
empowering them TO hold and operate property
for manufacturing ice, ana other things i'll con-
nection with their business Capital stock to be
not less than IS, COO and not more than $4,000,
Alice Hunter chose William Hunter as her
guardian.
j. j. Barton, Lyman Chalkey, Frank Gilmer,
7. N. Read, g. S. Leighton w. ii. Harris, U Il.
Moore, John W. Harris. VIM. Beasley and d. \.
Williamson Were admitted to practice law in
this court ana took the oaths prescribed by law.
Zeigler, Guardian, VS. stull, Guardian, order
that latter turn property of minors over to
former for removal from State,
J. A. G. Shipley qualified as Deputy Clerk.
Farmers Alliance Manufacturing Company vs.
West Iron Gate Company. Suit dismissed.
Same VS.. Jacob Wissler. judgments for plain
, tiffs and costs.
South iron Gate Land Company VS. Shepherd,
Riches, McGuinty, Sundcrlin, Mays, Goodwin
Knightly, Miller Craver ana Kirby. All these
suits continued.
Kivermont Company vs.. Winget, Judgment
of S110 for plaintiff with costs.
White VS.. Davis and Coyner, Judgment for
plaintiff 1925 with interest and costs.
Boiling, SPOTS s. Co. VS. Johnson and Mccall
| lister. jud gment on bond for plaintiff.
Moses Carter VS.. P. G. Kaylor, Mayor, ct ais
writ of prohibition granted.
| O'COnnell VS.. Carper, ct ais appeal Judgment
| Of lower court affirmed and license to sell liquor
at Iron Gate refused
Damron VS.. Frenger ct ais, verdict of $500
damages to plaintiff.
West Clifton Forge Investment Company VS..
Myers, continued.
McCurdy ct ais, VS. Wilkes continued.
Wenner, Wright Watkins VS.. Coplan, cen
tinued.
Lightner VS.. Byers s. Bel, Judgment for plain.
tiff. $500 with interest and costs.
| Hancock vs. West Clifton Forge Investment
Company, judgment for plaintiff. $500 with in
| terest and costs.
Tyree VS.. Western Union Telegraph Company,
removed to U. S. Court for trial.
Corhart VS.. jackson s. Co., continued.
T. c. Earman Co. VS.. Whitman, continued.
Irwin VS.. C. & 0. Railroad, remanded to rules
with leave to amend declaration
l Huddlestun s. Richardson VS.. Howard s. Sears,
continued.
Bessemer Building s. Loan Association VS..
Geo Swan, continued.
Same VS.. w. A. Rinehart, continued
Simpson ct ais. VS.. Low Moor Iron Company,
verdict for defendant with costs
Drewry s. Co. VS.. Allen, dismissed.
Harlow vs. Grove, continued.
H. T. Simpson VS.. Low Moor Iron Company
dismissed.
Switzer Farmers Alliance Manufacturing
Company, Judgment for plaintiff, Sl3i5O, with
interest and costs.
Melton VS.. c. & O. Railway Company, con-
tinued
Nettleton VS.. Hutchinson, Judgment for plain
tiff. $2o3.97 with interest and costs.
Tyler VS.. Western Union Telegraph Company
Judgment for plaintiff $780, with COSTS and ap-
peal taken.
Perkins VS.. Rich Patch Iron Company, cor
tinued.
Sims VS.. Clifton Forge Company remanded tC
rules, with leave to amend declaration.
Damron VS.. Rogers, judgment for plaintiff, SIS
without costs.
Pendleton Bros. VS.. Clifton Forge W ooler
Mills. Judgment for plaintiff, $l73.23 with inter
est and costs.
Davis VS.. Lightfoot, judgment for plaintiff
SLAP, with interest and costs.
Trout VS.. West Clifton Forge Investment Com
pany Judgment for plaintiff, $5l1.47, with inter
est and costs.
The following cases were continued: MoLle
s. Sons VS.. Accord; Kaylor VS.. Simmons; Gilpil
ct ais. VS.. Das is ct ais; Eagan VS.. Whitman; Viii
son VS.. Byers & Bell, Harrison Land and I'm
provement Company vs. jones'
Carter VS.. Accord ,jud gment for plaintiff S97 73
and costs.
The New Doty Manufacturing Company VS.
Farmers Alliance Manufacturing Company
Judgment for plaintiff for $3S0.60 with interes
l and cost.
Rivermont Company VS.. Geo. Swami, judg
ment for plaintiff for $780, with interest ant
!, COSTS
John Hickson Co. VS., Farmers Alliance Man
ufacturng Company Judgment for pantif TO
$l50.1S, with interest and costs.
Crank ct ais. VS.. Farmers Alliance Manufac
turng Company, Ju igment for pintiff for $371 I.
81, with interest and costs.
l kawlins VS.. i3yers & Bell, Judgment for plain
tiff for S166.G6, with interest and costs
Turner & Co. VS.. Farmer Alliance Manufac
: turing Company, Judgment for plaintiff for Ssf
IS, with interest and costs.
+ Lucas & Co. VS. Farmers Alliance Manufacture
I ing Company, judgment for plaintiff for $l6..t
it'll interest and costs.
Elgan Co. VS.. same, judgment for plaintiff fol
$162 81, with interest and costs
tiff for $426.74, with interest and costs.
Bank OF Waynesbofo VS.. Clifton Forge Invest
: ment Company, Judgment for plaintiff for %s5S
9S. with interest and costs
Conway Il Co. vs. Farmers Alliance Manufac
turing Company, Judgment for plaintiff for $3.50.
G2, with interest and costs.
Unon Foundry aud Machne Works VS.. same
- Judgment fer plaintifffor sl25 with interest ant
costs.
, Huddlestun VS.. same, Judgment for plaintiff
for 1888. ~ with interest and ccsts
I Davis Sewing Machine Company Jones
p Judgment for plaintiff for $ll2.22, with interes
and COSTS
featuring Company, Judgment for plaintiff TO
: $23, with interest and costs.
Cary s. Bros. VS.. same Judgment for plaintiff
) for $S261 3D. with interest and costs.
s Payne Shoe Co: VS.. Persinger, Judgment 70
= plaintiff for $311.4e, with interest and costs
4 Carey Bro. VS.. Clifton Forge Wooden Com
pany, judgment for plaintiff for Sl2.69, with i'll
terest and costs.
I Sagendorple Iron Roofing Company VS.. Accord
: Judgment for plaintiff for $7l2.53, with interes
Harrisonburg Iron Gate Building Company vs.
. Kagey Judgment for plaintiff for $615, with iii
Cincinnati Coffin Company vs. Woodward
: Judgment for plaintiff for Sl3069, with interes
and COSTS
a Henderson VS.. Accord, judgment for plaintiff
+ for SIT ~, with interest and costs.
Same VS.. same Judgment for plaintiff for 1881
: 81, with interest an costs
Wheat VS.. Accord, Judgment for plaintiff 70
S256.50, with interest and costs
y Trout vs. Clifton Forge Iron Company, juda
ment for plaintiff for s529R, with interest ant
!, Duncan VS.. same, Judgment for plaintiff TO
l 500, with interest and costs.
Carter VS.. Accord, Judgment for plaintiff TO
S1SS2, with interest and costs.
D Honnihan VS.. Surber, judgment for plaintiff
for S1993S, with interest and costs.
1 j. Il. Delaney was selected by J. 0. Kinney q
his guardian.
Bessemef b. and L. Association VS.. Swami
continued.
f Same VS.. w. A. Rnehart, continued.
CHANCERY ORDERS.
Following is q summary CT the chancery or
: derS during the term
Commissioners report confirmed and c9us
: re-committed for further examination; Roger
VS. Haynes administrator, and Kent, Payne e
ais. same and Haynes administrator vs.
Haynes heirs; Robinson RobinSon'S eXecu
tor.
Referred to Commissioner Hobbs: Stones ad
ministrator Rose; Nc Dannald, commits
sioner. VS.. Kincad; Wyatt VS.. Dickson; Clark
l executor VS.. BewelPs heirs; Williamson's ad
ministrator VS.. G. so. Railway; Jones VS.. Jack
son; National Valley Bank vs.. Patton e6 ais.
: Kaylor VS.. Simmons Potts Valley Mining anl
Manufacturing Company VS.. Rid0lebarger
Green VS.. Faulconer, and Iron Gate Lumbe
Company VS.. same; Excelsior Stove Patteri
Company vs. Whitman, and same vs. Columhu
Steel Range Company Mays VS. Curry; Muir
rays widow VS.. Murrays administrator.
, referred to Commissioner Delaney; Loven
stein VS.. Burks; Iyree, guardian, VS.. Criser
Gillespie VS.. Curry. aud Alexander VS.. Gillespie
O'COnner VS.. Gillespie
Referred to Commissioner Barton: Kline.
, vs. Dickey; Cornelius VS. Durgan. Gin thes
two cases sale of part of the property was or
? dered.) Boswell VS.. Fudge; Anderson VS.. White
Referred to Commissioner Garrett: Keigai
vs.. West Clifton Forge Investment Company
, Lockhart VS. Rose; Evans VS.. Snead.
Referred to Master Commissioner: Hoppe
vs. Sherman. A13aDhauy Rank VS.. Jackson.