San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1892-11-05
The COURTS.

/
Braden VS.. City OF San Antonio,
Judgment for plaintiff
Staacke VS.. Dignowity, judgment
for plaintiff.
Palmer vs. Solcher. dismissed.
| Smith & Stone VS.. Hubbell, passed.
| Van Camp VS.. Van Camp, passed.
Hadley VS.. Hsdley, passed.
Schweppe vs.. Hammer, pas sed.
McLernon vs.. Illg, passed.
Yoakum vs. Michael, passed
Irving VS.. Rsschbach, passed.
Kindred VS.. sullivan, con tinued,
| by consent.
Flewelen We. Woodward, continued
by agreement.
Stephenson vs.. Seay, judgment for
plaintiff.
McGowen VS.. Pslaciss, set for No
vember IL.
Ryder VS.. Ryder. continued for
operation of laws.
Broggi VS.. Broggi, set for Novem-
Der 3.
Appler Va. Msurer, continued.
Douchy We. Carter, continued on
application of defendant.
Hunt VS.. Oppenheimer, continued
by agreement.
Charlotte Clothing Company vs.
Bruins wick. continued for service.
Dignowity vs.. EImendorf, plaintiff
granted leave to amend and c0ntin-
ued by plaintiff.
Holmgreen & Sons vs.. AlvOrd, con-
tinued by consent.
Schwab Clothing Company VS.
Brunswick &. Sons, continued for
service.
Hampton VS.. Hathaway, continued
for service.
OIiyarri VS.. Martinez, continued.
Muguerza vs. Hicks, continued.
Tenant & Winfield VS.. Hosack,
continued.
Burke VS.. Bivens. judgment for
plaintiff.
for plaintiff.
Faile VS.. Craddock, dismissed.
Mikel VS., Galveston, Harrisburg
and San Antonio Railway company
dismissed tor want of prosecution.
Burascano, VS.. BurascsnO, contin-
ued for service,
smith vs.. Polk & Voak; dismissed
at plaintiffs cost.
Smith VS.. Dunlavy; continued for
| service.
Hugo & Schneider VS. Breeding
! Pros & Moser; continued for service.
| Hensley vs. Degner; continued.
MickIejohn VS.. City OF San Antonio;
! continued by defendants.
San Antonio National Bank vs..
| White: continued for service.
Stieren vs. Maverick; judgment for
nIaintiff with foreclosure of lien.
Thomson Honston Electric Com
pany VS.. Berg; continued by consent.
Thompson Houston Company vs.
West End Street Car Company; con-
tinued ny consent.
Viscoya VS.. Brown; continued by
consent.
Sein VS.. International and Great
Northern Railway Company; contin-
ued by consent.
Netf VS.. International and Great
Northern Railway Company; conttn
ued by consent.
Cullen VS.. Cullen, plaInniff granted
leave to file first amended petition
II the FOrty-fifth district court
the following business has beer
transacted:
M. Edwards vs.. J. B. Lanyan
suit to cancel deed, the jury return
ed a verdict of 80 1913 60 Tor plaintiff
and the ranch in controversy and 81 ,
500 rent tor defendant.
The following routine business wa
transacted in the Forty-fifth distric
court yesterday:
Watson VS. Hernandez, dismissed
for want OF prosecution.
Peasants VS.. Joske Brothers, con
| tinued.
, Freeman vs. Missouri Pacific rail
0 way, continued.
Irwin VS. Smith, continued.
Y Goldfrank, Frank d Co. VS.. Half
!, Bro, continued.
SimOns VS.. International & Grea
! Northern Railway company, leav
granted defendant to file amende
4 original answer.
e Ibarbo Va. Nuepdorft, continued b
II agreemedt.
-" Bexar building and Loan associs
ton VS.. Julia Further. continued.
The fine of George EichlilZ, a de
faulting juror, was remitted.
! In the 45th district court the follow
:, ing business was transacted thl
- morning:
re Chas. J. Stahl vs. the City of Sa
o. Antonio; dismissed.
Up ]. NJ. Henson vs.. Emil Schmidt; di
n, missed.
- Mayer, Burgower & Voelcker v
Aetna Fire Insurance company; M
ton to dismiss, overruled.
E. Dittmar VS.. NJ. E Lubbock ct a.
nc on promissory note; defendant ROl
- ins0n's motion for new trial sustaint
% to which plaintiff excerpts.
- A. Stevenson VS.. Pullman Pala,
ne Car company, damages; motion f
, new trial by plaintiff overruled, al
ry plaintiff gives notice Of appeal.
n. Rosona G. Ruiz ct al. vs. Chas. /
SO r. Campbell ct al, partition Jno.