Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-22

peniteptinry. iu tho second To FIVE years
u the third seven vchrs and in the fourth
i've years. The prisoner rather seemed
90 enjoy the prosRct bef0r him. md
laughed whom the verdicis were banded
Ira
FORTY EIGHTH DISTRICT.
A divorce case which WAS extremely
sensational occupied tho attention Of
this court until adjournment az o'clock
Tho style was james Brady vs.. Mary
Brady. The particulars Of the case nre
~ salacious aud racy that they are uuiit
for publication IN those columns. The
divorce was granted.
COUNTY COURT.
Several eases Of gambling, aggravated
assault and violating The Sunday law
we're tried yesterday, a. follows;
state Of Texas vs.. j. Graves theft
Of less than so plea Of guilty and lined
$40 and one day la Jail.
state Of Texas vs.. jim Hicks. betting
az dice. i've cases. 4 plea Oi guilty us
entered IN each and the regular tine Of
$40 imposed.
unR ut dicr, four cases. plea Of guilty
as entered IN three cases aud $40 fines
imposed 10 each, aud one case was dis
missed
Dan Andrews for keeping open on
sunday was fined $40 and costs.
State of Texas vs. ID. j. Warren. two
cases, aggravated assault. He was
found not guilty on both charges
The jury civil docket will he called for
setting at a. m. Monday.
NEW SUITS FILED.
The Dundee Mortgage and Trust com.
pAny vs.. Frank &. MOmail IT. al. suit
Tor debt on prOmissory note for $1,000
and foreclosure on lots o. 10. If. L.. II
and ~ block 100, situated in the city
of Fort Worth.
w. Mackenzie w. =. w. Lovclady
ct A.; suit to recover ON a prornissui.y
note of the value Of 1000. nnd Tor
foreclosure OF deed of trust on 1850 acres
OF land In Johnsou county.
William Mackenzie vs.. Snllic Huffman
90 al suit 10 recover on "a promissory
note Tor The sum of Sl3,OOO. payable on
J,une l. 49,, aud for foreclosure on
"in acres Of land Ina Tarrnut county
The Alliance Trust company vs.. Nj. q.
Ems ct AL. suit To- recover on n prom.
issory note ia the sum ul $4,000.
,John BrhWns W. ID. .. Weymouth pt
~, 10 cancel judgment for divorce. plniu.
W.. alleges that the allegations IN plain.
I'm petition for divorce we're ,uitr,p
as well MS the evidence ndduced at he
uiai mat he was Ia Mexico. and wa,
uhablc 10 be- present at the procrpdipg..
| thnt the suit was the result of fraudu.
NAI hcheme between one Granger and
Nclle BehWns bis wife. to pro.
| cure snid divorce and intermarry
t,'"t ne "lI not know when the trial was
| 20 thhe place; ana be asks thnt Wow.
mouth, or Granger, and Nellie Behrons
| nc 'nJurcd from dispOsug of tho proprrtv
! Jointly owned by them.
George llmley ~ a. vs.. Il. e. VOLS
| ~ a. sui Tor debt aud foreclosure MID
| SUI rs on q principal promissory note FOR
NiIT ana interest promissory notes.
SUIT FOR debt aud foreclosure.
90 william Mackenzie W. j. w. Wilson
Sc 81 M debt aud foreclosure
~ w EgglestOn & Go a. a. W
lsf;nno"er for debt, foreclosure ard re-
4. A. Locke vs.. Ambrose Klein OF ol.
oeol ana foreclosure.
ODDS AND ENDS.
~ g Eastman the ussaihnt of Ogice,
- was before Justice Kennedy ycstor
! any, and waived an ,Tnfnipti,, t;,i
! His bond was fixed at $1,000 I'M ba i,.
quiPd amount. '''" Tue re-
iia15 lIiitson' was arrested vcator
| uhy 10y The constable at Arlnrton am
! ,hurge OF stealing two horses Ue ,.av,
"o oI III Justice Handles court for SOON
| M W. released
The case aRnirst Josh Bennott bsyi,,
| 3enh dismissed, h. was released rro1,
| lnl yesterday, and jim Milso,, sn,
EIo'U league were released ON bond
Illu KICKS was jailed yesterday To-
bunu TX, on sentence in the county cour,
anu WINE Wilson and Hugh Rav wcr
on y',,.,a anu plneed IN the county jni
Nu' solitary marriage license v..
Pla'Vu on record yesterday. md oniy III
nave been issued during tbo nal u,
days ''' PA" 81