San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1893-10-03
IN THE COURTS
Gases Disposed of in the District
Courts This Morning.

this morning. The following cases
We're acted upon:
,iphn SehOrn, receiver, VS.. B. f.
Cobb. debt and attachment; judg-
ment by default.
Edward Desalme VS.. the San AM
TONIC Street Railway company,
damages; dismissed.
Hugo 4 Schneider VS.. Otto ii
Fielder, debt; judgment by default.
Hugo d Schneider vs.. y. W..
Krempkau, debt; judgment by de-
fault.
Sarah r. Ingersoll VS.. John T.
Lyle, on prOmissOry note; con-
Itinued for service on ID. r. Faust.
and Judgment by default! as to
other defendants.
William DObrowolslli Tvs. Fran
DISCO Ruiz, on prOmissory note;
dismissed.
Fred Kaufman VS.. F. Green
wood, debt; judgment by default.
Joseph Landa VS.. Schuwlrth q
Hutmacher, debt; judgment by
default.
George C. Vaughn & Co. VS.. iSa-
rah F. Ostrom, on promissory note;
Judgment by default.
William Reuter- VS.. II. b. and
Stella A. Potts, debt and to fore
close lien; dismissed at defendants
costs.
\. b. Frank vs.. \. F. Sawyer and
wife, debt and to fOreclose lien and
injunction; judgment by default
J. f.. Price and Thomas H. Gil
roy vs.. Q. c. IIildebrand, debt;
dismissed at plaintiffs costs.
Jacob WOhlfarth vs.! W. b. JEFF.
fers, on prOmissory note; judg-
ment by default.
d. b. Fisk d Co. VS.. Mrs. }. Will
son. debt; dismissed.
The San Antonio Milling COM
pany VS.. Ferdinand Herrle, on
promissury note; judgment by de-
fault.
Margaret Brannen VS.. Robert
Brannen, divorce; dismissed al
plaintiffs costs.
James Raley VS.. w. II. Jennings.
on note; dismissed by plaintiff.
Francisco LiteriO VS.. Antonio Ii
teriO, divorce; judgment for plain.
tiff.
Simon ROthstein VS.. Gus Young.
debt; dismissed at plaintiffs cost.
j. l.. 5. Hunt, receiver, VS.. VIM.
}. Mcnamara, on prOmiSSOry note
judgment by default.
Martin & Burgess Us. J. w.
klinglcr ct al, on prOmissory note
and to foreclose MORTGAGE judg-
ment by default.
Mrs. W. 5. McCraw VS.. J. ID
Martin and W. Martin, on promis-
DRY note; dismissed by plaintiff
Camp 4 Camp. for the use of r.
{. Frost, VS.. y. r. Alice ct al, on
promissory note; judgment by de-
fault.
Elmcndorf d Co., vs.. Ed. Glow
ney ct al, debt; judgment by de
fault As to ClOwney and defendant
+. X. lyman, day to answer.
Charles ID. LyfOrd VS.. &. G. Cliff
ford and +. p. COrbett, debt; judg-
'ment by default. Stay of eXecu-
ton for two months.
The AnglO-TeXan Land and Loan
company, VS.. George Pearson, gar.
nishment; defendant given leave
to amend.
VIM. NJ. Locke VS.. Will III. Bon
nell, on prOmissOry note; judgment
by default.
Amalia Elmendorf VS.. the New
England Land company, on notes
judgment by default.
l.. and f. Kaufman VS.. F. anC
r. Simmang, on accepted draft
judgment by default.
Reagan Houston, assignee, t.
VIM. Hoefling, on promissory
notes; judgment by default.
Reagan Houston. assignee, VS.
Charles G. BOelhauwe, on promis
sorry note, judgment by default.
II. B. Adams VS.. William Hiley
debt and to fOreclose lien; judg
ment by default.
Charles r. Irving and J. A. Ras
bach VS.. c. X. Breneman and Leo
pold NJ. Michael, injunction; dis
missed for want Of prosecution.
Ed Stoves & Sons VS.. Joseph c
Wilmer, on sworn account; iudg
1ment by default.
Ella +. Porter VS.. J. II. Porter