Arizona republican., 1894-11-16

the trustees of school district No. 5, an application for restraining order to prevent the defendants from removing the school house.
 At regular election held in that dis trict the subject of removal was voted upon and the project received a two- thirds vote. In hls application the petitioner states that the proposition was made for the convenience of residents of certain part of the district more thicklv settled and to the great incon- venience of the minority one-third liv- ing in another part of the district. He says that the present location Is cen tral, the house is surrounded by shade and supplied with water. The proposed location, he says, is on one side of the district and the site is low, unhealthful and devoid of pleasant or convenient surroundings.
 The only matter passed upon by the court, however, was the election at which the removal was voted. He de- cided it to have been without effect as to this subject and accordingly granted the restraining order. The law provides that when removal of school house is contemplated, a meeting of the electors shall be called to vote upon it and does not provide that the removal shall be subject of settlement at a regular election held for another pur- pose.
 Another decision of interest was a construction of the lien law rendered in one of the cases against the South Gila Canal company. The court held that it was intended to protect all classes of laborers alike, and in the case at issue it applied to every man employed upon the works, even to the cooks in the camps.
 Cooks, by the way, on public works had been excluded by a California de- cision in similar case from participa- tion in the benefits of the law, upon the theory that their labors were not directly contributory to the enterprise like those of other labors who were actively engaged in the construction.
 The following other cases were dis posed of: Goldman X Go. vs. the Har- cuvar Copper company; judgment for plaintiff. Goldman & Go. vs. F. Hor- ton judgment for plaintiff.
 In each of the three cases of the Illinois National bank, the First Ma tional Bank of Madison, Wis, and J. B. Kinley vs. H. A. ". Tabor, judg ments were rendered against the de- fendant.
 The afternoon was mainly occupied in making up the docket. Cases were set as follows:
 For today-J. E. Walker assignee of the Hartford Bank Vs. Parish and Zulick :; same plaintiff vs. H. D. Underwood and E. L. Schultz; Joseph Campbell trustee vs. Chandler ct al; Alfred Smith vs. H. H. Wharton; J. s. Cant vs. Little and Cameron; M. Wormser vs. the un. known heirs of Guadalupe Acasto.
 Saturday-H. c. Rogers ct al. vs. J. J. Desmond Miller vs. Israel; Bank of British Columbia vs. H. G. Green haw: Pascal Gerardi vs. W. A. Ben nett ct al.; F. H. Brown vs. John Dennis, Murphy ct al.
 Monday-Trask vs. Goldman, ct al l; Bank of British Colum hia vs. Robert Bowen; L. P. Drexler vs. Alice Herrett, executrx, ct al; 1. N. Banor vs. Ellis McFall.
 Tueeday-Maricopa Loan and Trust company vs. A. J. Porterie; D. W. Cal fee vs. Joseph Roletto.
 Wednesday - Frank Byler vs. $. Jones; A. c. Adrich vs. the South Gila canal company and c. A. Luke i; Trask, Kessler Go. vs. Cross Seven Land and Cattle company; John Rock vs. George Hidden ct al; D. H. Smith vs. E. H. Hidden and R. D. Wooddell /; Holmes, Gregory & Lindsley vs. Mary Beauvais ct al; W. H. Thomas ct al ys. c. H. Edmundson.
 Thursday-J. E. Johnson vs. G. H. Hirschfeldt; Alexander Marshall vs. Wm. Ruff; J. K. Murphy vs. Maricopa county; The Overman Wheel company vs. Aldridge and Griswold.
 Friday next-O. B. Bachus vs. Car men Perezzo; P W. Fleming, admins trator estate of Squair Richardson vs. I. W. Penn berton, administrator estate of o. L. Gibbs; John Asher vs. P. ". Fleming. administrator estate of Rich ardson; Bianchi and Smyly vs. Henry Garfias and bondsmen M. B. Cox and J. Monihon; Geo. ". Chapman vs. c. L. Rigden.
 Saturday next - 4. Steinnegger vs, | Wm. Zent ct al; M. H. Sherman vs. P K, Hickey,