Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-18

/ wanted IN Missouri, awakened consider
able interest though he was q stranger
/ mandcd 10 Jail Some yp",licts rendered
/ by the juries Ia one or two county court
| cusca crcnird some comment The cnei
/ interest conferred in the Srycnic nth lu.
| dlcial district court, the cruses on triul
| being Of considerable interest. rs two pi
/ them were damage suits against rurpp-
rnuUns. There were no new suits hlcd
ia either of the courts and business in
| The crrks Offices logged along. Just IN
| the old sweet way.
THE DISTRICT COUNTS.
In the Seventeenth district court the
jury h. the case of Charles Glenck VS..
the Texas and Pacific Railway company,
suit for damages for personal injuries TO
his wife, rendered q verdict for the plain
til m the sum " $3.50
In the suit of W. G. Eustis vs.. the
Merchants National bank the jury rrn-
dpred q verdict of 5000 Ina favor of the
pluintin
The case of T.. A. Trimble VS.. the Pull
man Palace Gar company aud the Tex
as apd Pacific Railway company was
on trial during the afternoon. This is "a
suit Tor damages
ln The Fouy-cighth district court the
day was occupied with cnses ON the nom
jury appearance docket
No. jjDG. RmsdOrf. Stern. Iaucr a.
Co. vs.. William Knox at a.. sui for
debt and attachment; continued 10y con-
sent.
No. GO59, b. W. Gum vs. j. w sun
nnglum ct ul, suit in partition: contiu-
ued 10y consent.
No. GilA. Northern Bank of Kentucky
W. Southern Il Irislcy, garnishmcf 6;
No. G+g5. Northern Bank of Kentucky
W.. George l'rtucel gnrnishmpuE No.
GiDG Northern Bank of Kentucky vs..
Charles GOss gurni.hmenL were all
passed to be- taken uD hy agreement.
No. GIi}. Robert Edward va. Demo
cmt Publishing company, damages; con-
tinucd hy pinirtin
NO. $3.50. wilkins Alexander ct al. vs..
Frank puslcy, trcspnfs continued gem
orally
No 6075, }. w Buchanan VS. Arlc-
sian Ice company. continued under thp
No. 1907, Mortln-Browp company vs..
John g. &. Endes et al, dcht Judgment
hy default for plaintiff
THE COUNTY COURT
The jury in the ease of Fuuk and
Bedford Woods Va. the Texas and Pa-
cilic, suit for damages for loss ui house
hold goods, returned verdict FOR tie
plaintiffs IN the SUN of $40.
The jury in the Cahe of Morgan vs..
Flowers distress, returned verdict for
the pmuuu ia the sim of S303.
The cNse OF WIG NcalN Co. vs.. j. y. Ca
uthers, suit for commissions for The sale
of stock of goods was on trial in the
attcmOo..
The following Is the sitting of
The second assignment of the uon-Jury
civil docket iu the county court, Junu-
airy term, 1893.
Monday, Feb. 2ONo. 4lI1. j b
Hamilton W. Kit Garter Cattle CON-
pnny; No. 400, j. A, Rogers IS. john ID.
rvnplptou. gninishce; No 1851, TarraIk
county VS. w +. Lane, constable. No.
1891, r. H. Polk ~ Go. vs. y. +. Hood ct
al, No. 1850, Neal Il Putnam w. Andcr.
son blackburn; No. 4Ot5, james Cauier
vs.. Missouri. I\ausue aud Texas Rail
way company Of Texas.
Tuesday, Feb 2lNo. 452S, Panhandle
Machine aud lmplemDL company vs..
Panhandle National bank, gUmishce;
No. 4TOG, Alex (msn va W. T. Rmcy;
No. ISi2, W. \. HuDmun vs.. Sid VIII
burn: No. 1910. A. j. Anderson for use
sioiS; No iOiS George w. Miller vs.
John s. Gideon; No 1917, Z. l.. Pablo
vs.. Texas and Pacific Railway company
Wednesday. Feb. - 1875, 4. III. Sil-
Imam vs.. j. A. Thomas; 4I34 Gallo
way Butes Vs. III. ii. Corn; 1874 Tho
Martin Brown company vs.. w. &. Lynch;
MA, Perkins. Campbell * Co. VS.. liable
aud Sacttrr. 1872, A. A. Green. Jr. vs.
Jno. r. NcEm2ie: 1865. Burton, Lingo x
Co, VS. r. ID Talbot, ct al.
Thursday Feb. % lt}l T.. NJ Win
frey vs. bank of Clarendon, gurUishcn;
1900, Mark i.utf0ou vs.. Fort Worth md
hguvcr tity halfway company, ct al;
1870, Cahill. Collins Is TO- vs.. Casey X
SWascy. gurMsAcp. 4S9H tullms N Nrm-
strong company SIS. VIM. Cuuady; +SSS.
Fort Worth GrOccr company vs., Ia $.
Aston. ct al; 1891, Collins X Arm
;;lr2i9,g company w. ! ~ IolbGGrr1 4934,
chnnics' Building aud Loan association
IS. JamVs W Swnyuc and G, VI. Crane
y Co: 1850. j u. Gray vs.. Texas aud
Pacific Railway company.
NHdny. Feb. ~, lID3. i. G.. Morse VS..
Fort Worth arl Rio Grandr Railway
company garhisllcp; 1864. Chus Srhe,i-
bank, garuishec 1892 Sarah Brock.
man yH, Texas aud Pacific Railway cum-
pny; tNNi. j, j. Roche Administrations
W al, vs.. H. VI. Moore. ct all 493J
Evansville Cooperative Furniture com.
puny. ct ul. Buhmaun ~ Hansen vs.
Fort Worth lnstolmcnl company, ct AL
saturday, Feb. 25, 39OI, George y
le0chmNu ". Phoenix Assurance com.
pany OF London; 1865 Fort Worth Gam.
dy and Cracker company VS.. L. Phoenix
y son $500, Henry G. Schmidt. .lr.. Of
a., vs.. state National bank, gurnishce,
NNNAf fhAAltN AAftlA lNN VS. NAillN National
bank, garnshcc; 4SI2, Slllir Huffman
vs.. Hartford Fire Insurance coulpony
SArnishee; ASlh Texas Brewing COM
pnny ". State National bank. garnishen.
lSOO, Texas Brewing company M. Hnrt.
ford Fire Insurance company pnrnishee,
ash Henry &, schmidt .Ir M nj ~
Hartford Fire Insurance company. car.
Uishce ""'
Monday. Feb. u. 1916 II n Rn,o
W.. w ~. Taylor; 49,. Chns NInrtin
". MuMck y Hall; igO3. ,IeG Enrl ~
LeNns and Pacific Railway comuony.
"d92 Texas uud Pacific Rau,ynv eo.,
pany US, mllips n Niugs Machine com.
pany; 1916, The Airmoter comn"n, ~
the Panhandle Machine aud Implemcnt
company, 'H'
Tuesday, Feb 2S45o4. A. n Cor
Ter W; -JiaanSc G Roe and II. n. Ora.
ham +l@G j. d. purdy vs.. q. r. Vs.. |
t,OA, J NJ, Rogers vs. Rurington In,
suranee companyl 400 collins a Ann |
suonH company US. Hoe II. Aiontrou1er,,
81 ul'' al4l, OTTO Stechhan a ca ~
Hen tiilman, gnnshee; 1896. Vn1' |
lt"s1eN l,o' W, John r. Moptcotperg
ct al; 1873, H. u. Smith - ~ - |
Hyres, ct all t0T4, Il. II, smith " ~ /
j. Ayrcs. "a a. w. W
!, "Wednesday March -312O. w r.
North IS. Texas aud Pacific Roil,ydr
cohpanyi 4iua j. H. STEPHENS vs. IN,
9s AMI Pacific Railway company. az /
~ Duty vs.. Texas ana pnrifr p. u.po,
company; 4S4l, A. A. Green Ia. wy 1
Geo I. Allen; 1910. Fort Wor,h" W. |
[ tea Trust ~ "sAN ana I