San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1893-01-05

THE COURTS.
THIRTY SEVENTH DISTRICT.


Yesterday afternoon the jury in the
case OF R0bb vs.. the San Antonio Street
Railway company, returned verdict for
plaintiff for s679. at 6 per cent interest,
from October 20, 1889.
Plaintiff obtained judgment in case No.
5645, T. I'll. Mcklejohn VS.. the City OF San
Antonio, on contract.
as follows:
1922. Elk parte, S. III. Houston, for re-
moval of disabilities of minority: granted.
546S Hoover vs.. Hoover, continued by
agreement.
5523 Yoakum VS.. Michael ct AL, con =
tinued by agreement.
5644. T. II. Mickeljohn VS.. the City of
San Antonio; Judgment for plaintiff.
5000 Stevens VS.. Dashiell, TO be called
Monday. Jan. Q.
5547 Garrison VS.. Peasants, judgment
for plaintiff.
FORTY FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
Business was transacted this morning
as follows:
1866. Yturri VS.. Hansen, leave given to
file first amended petition.
502. Hoffman VS.. Zizelmann, dismissal
set aside and set on second jury day next
term.
3S3. Bexar Building and Loan Assoca-
ton VS.. Further, A. Il. Devine appointed
TO represent Jessie OchSe.
1910. The New York and Texas Land
company VS.. Cruger, sea Tor trial second
jury day next term.
6S5. Mclean Carriage company VS..
Hicks. continued by defendant
lO4415. Vickers VS.. San Antonio Rail
way company, continued by consent.
764. Hofheinz VS.. Kimball, Judgment
by default.
765 Gauldng VS.. San Antonio Cross
Town Railway company, made first class
case for January term.
400 Smith and Redmon VS.. Flores, dis
missal set aside and case continued.
sos Belo & Co. VS.. MacNamara, dis
missed by plaintiff.
sO7. Belo Il Co VS.. Lott, continued
$50 Drone VS.. q. II. & 5. A., dismissed
for want of prosecution.
49, Moss vs.. Doyle ct al, continued,
923. Ruiz ct al. VS.. Campbell ct al,
painti # given leave to Tile first
amended supplemental petition and
plaintiffs exceptions to defendant answer
overrued to which plaintiff excerpts
955. The New Jersey Vantilating and
Power company VS.. Faust. continued and
made first class case next term.
1927. J. d. and Nellie De Moss VS..
Martin & Merrick, dismissed for want
of prosecution.
ing and Loan association We, Hambleton,
continued.
l2il. Nelson VS.. James, continued by
plaintiff.
1867. Nall VS.. KrOeger, continued by
plaintiff.
1913. Pauly ct al. VS.. Pauly ct al, de-
PENDANTS exceptions to plaintltfS deposi'
lions overruled: case on trial by jury.
Geo. A. Chabot, w. ). Hadley, A. +
Gulick, Louis Kunkel, +. &. Graves, K.
r. Carriage, w. Ii. Boothe and G; II.
Garrison were each fined $40 as defaulting
jurors.
NEW SUITS.
The following new suits have been
filed:
1908. Francis Smith VS.. Joseph Tesur
on promSsOry note.
1904 John Osman VS.. G. w. Brown, or
promiSSory note.
1905, Maggie Hightower VS.. John
HightOwer, divorce, cruel treatment Is al
legged, also adultery. Plaintiff alleges thai
defendant is living in adul terry with
JAMIE Shade, who said defendant holds
out as his second wife, and by whom he
has two children. Plaintiff asks for 50 pei
week alimOry.
1906. Adeia l.. HinOiOS VS.. Fennin
HinOjos, divorce. Abandonment is The
1 cause.
5s43. Kate NJ. Merritt VS.. London Ian
| caShire Fire insurance company, garnlsh'
i mani