San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1893-01-04
THE COURTS.

Business was transacted as follows this
| morning:
1894. May Anna VS.. AdelIa Anna, judg-
ment for plaintiff.
1913. Abe Ash VS.. VIM. Reuter-, dismiss
ed at PLAINTIFFS cost,
5O67. Buckley VS.. Sullivan, set for first
| jury case next setting.
5677. MARITIME VS.. MARITIME, dismissed at
plaintiffs cost.
5452. Dullnig VS.. Cuebas, plaintiff given
leave to file first supplemental petition.
1904. Stoves VS. Maverick, judgment
for plaintiff for 1922 .55.
gao. Tanner VS., Western Union Tele-
graph company, plaintiff given leave TO
| file first supplemental petition.
5453. May VS.. Riley N Son, plaintiff
given leave to file first supplemental petit
ton.
500. National Lafayette Bank VS..
Wooley and Russ, defendant Wooley given
leave to file second amended answer
1889. Mary j Robb VS.. the San An
tonic Street railway company, suit for
rent money, is on trial.
The criminal docket will be taken up
Monday.
The sheriff and deputies were sworn in
this morning for jury Summoning pur-
poses. They were instructed, according
TO law, to summon sober and sensible
men. Judge Noonan told them he did not
| know how they could tell whether or not
| a man was Sensible: hut he didn't see
how they could get sober men out of bar
rooms, ana il would do well for them 10
steer clear of those pIaces in summoping
jurors.
FoRTYFIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
| Business was transacted in this court
TINS morning as lolioWs:
ll04. Holmgreen VS.. Craig, continued
by consent
1l05. Cafe 4 Ryan VS.. Harding, contin-
| ued by consent
lO2. Charo VS.. Charo, continued oy
consent.
1873. koehler VS.. Reuter- continued by
| consent.
1860. Western mortgage ana invest
ment company VS.. l.. TARA, defendant
given leave to file amended answer.
l3S3. GroSoecK NatlohaI1bankV VS.. Long;
plaintiff given leave to lie hrst amended
| original petition. MI, ,,,,,,,i,.,, ,o.
go: Cara VS.. kivas' dismissed nnder
ruieior coSGs. r,,,.., ,.,,,,,,.,oa
343. Cuellar VS.. krakauer, dismissed
unner rue l0r costs. .,..
3U9 Lahda vs.. ochmidt, c0htinueu.
| ooo- IlghtheI ". nIniGh ~ heuinon' Ioh-
tlnned by agreement ana SET lor ilrsV-ciilss
| jury case. .,, -.
40. akers VS.. hughes cohtihueu ny
CONSENT sS tn;,.Lo, 40 co continued h.,
| gu. Mlchaei vs. lamp 'coilIiiueu u!
consent; o.,,,:, ,..,,,,,,,, ,,,
ia. iehSon vs.. ochhlloI' uiSli''sseu ior
want OF prosecution. r.
~. ,leXas NaSlonal bahk VS. ErasCus
Reed, continued for service.
l34 peasants VS.. JosKe, continued oy
agreement: ~ .,.,
1858. Wright VS.. Braner, continued by
consent;
5OS. rainier VS.. Reed' continued oy
| consent.
i43. DeVere VS.. DeVere, continued.
l49. Irwin VS.. Smith, continued.
| 16O. Cortez VS.. BeXar Bulldlng ana Loan
association, continued; SUBJECT 10 DC SET
| aside.
The cases OF II. Il. IarVer, receiver OF
| the Laredo Improvement company VS..
| IL. ID. kampmann, A. Z. SchryVer, II. Is.
Andrews, q. Is. Moore, Mrs. a. >; moore
| ct al, Mrs. 5. N Gage ct al, w. j: Is.
| Patterson, nj. +. Ellis, James RaIey, MRS.
| cases and set for first non-jury case next
| term.
| tinued:
Ill. 'Horle vs. Eisner, continued.
233. Castanola VS.. Bitter, continued.
2S3. Bexar Building and Loan associa-
| ton VS.. Julia Further, eXecutrix, jury
waived and Judgment for plaintiffs; de-
tendant given ieaVe 10 "'thofa" Jur!
S55 Jackson VS.. Cable. continued by
"E aSS lanes & Tierpan vs., Heiscbper,
| continued
'C az Hill VIC Barton. continued.
9S5 Koenipbeim va. Civ of San An