The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-02
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR
CHIEF JUSTICE MERRITT BEGINS
PERENIPTORY CALL TUESDAY.
Calendar Contains Two Hundred
and Eleven Cases, Which Will
Be Taken Up in Their Order as
Given Below.

pe taken up IN their order as follows:
Edward T; Singer VS.. Salt Lake
I Gopper Mfg. Co, el al; Lootoourow &
| mann. McCallum & Hoppaugh.
! adam Kuhn ct a.. VS. John Harring-
7; ]. Anderson, Richards & Richards. li rH@ -
Henry Z. MEllard VS.. A. B. Miliard,
et al; j. l.. Loar, NJ. NJ. ka4gnn, C. Il.
IS. l. c. f & Mfg. Co. VS.. Salt Lake
| Coop Iron Works, ct al; LIE Grande
Young, Pence & Allen.
H 5mGs Pd@ar. HeEzley y vs. clements
B. Shepard.
6-Jennie Tufts, ct al. VS.. Eleanor E.
Wicken, Ell al; Powers, Straup & Lip
man. Brown q Henderson.
f-Gertrude Castagno VS.. Nat NJ Brig
nam, etc; Chas. Baldwin, Breeze & Bur
RS Jah. II. Moyle.
-SR. Butterfeid VS.. Clesson s Kinney;
Jones & Schroeder, r. B. Shepard
5-Daniel Tyler ct al. Us. Salt Lake
Copper Mfg. Co.; H. S. McCallum, Loot
borrow e. Kahn.
O-Bat Gardella VS.. ]. p. Peterson, ct
al. c. s. Varian, Loofbourow & Kahn.
1l-Thomas B. Shannon vs.. studebaker
Bros. Mfg. Co.: Powers x Straup. d
3. Hampstead, Williams, Van Colt &
Sutherland
Publishing Co; NJ. N. Kaighn, Powers,
Straup & Lippman.
1d-Geo w: DER VS.. Isaiah White;
Powers, Straup & L.ppman, Sutherland &
lEAnnie H; Ross vs.; Arminda v.
Mann; Zane & Zane. Anderson & Ander-
son.
al; Booth, Lee & Gray, ". c. Reilly.
I6-Philo F. Jones VS.. Mary e. Jones';
8 McDowan, Jones & Schroeder.
1.-THE, Groesbeck Co. vs.. Mrs. N. r;
Van Glider; Booth, Lee d Gray, j. Lu
TaVIOr Zane e zane.
I-The People, etc. VS.. George A. De-
vim; j. w. Judd, S. P. Armstrong.
19-Preston Nutter vs.: Heb9er b b.. 0ehe ss
ct al; Richards & Richards, Williams
90. L. Rawl:ns ct al. vs.. Martin Nc
Grath ct al; J. H. Hurd, Rawlins &
Critchlow, W. l, Snyder.
Geo. E. Wright, etc; Geo. Westervelt.
Booth, Lee & Gray.
2s-Edward Butterworth vs. John i Sul II;
van ct al; D. S. Whitehorne. }. M. Ham
2sHF,rank Druehl vs.. Chas; T, Dolperg;
$. H. Lewis, Bennett, Marshall & Brad
ley.
kins; E. D. Hoge. W. G. Van Horne,
% 25Dsamuel Mcmillan vs.. John j. Smith
ct al; ]. r. Riley, F. e. Woods. Richie
26NJohn Butte vs. Pleasant Valley Coal
company; Powers, Straun & Lfppanan'
Bennett, Marshall & Bradley.
27-M. ]. Weeks VS.. Dalton colo MIL
ing and Milling company: Booth, Lee q
Gray, Van Horne & Baldwin.
DE. P. Ellison VS.. Rio Grande W est
ern Railway company; Sqth Ie ND q
Murphy Bennett, Marshall & Bradley.
29-Frank Maltese vs.. Alex Rogers ct
al: L. NJ Armstrong, A, Howatr
SLCharies Backman VS.. E. E. Rich ct
al; Frank Hoffman, Frank Pierce
3l-ANce S. Little vs., Jas. L. Llttie'
md Young
aI: s f. Lev Lewis, II. j. Dinniny
Remington Johnson company VS.,
Josiah Barnett ct al; H 4; 3. MGCaTlun
Sutherland, A. Howat, Nye & Armstrong
Bennett Marshall & BradlSy.
3ABurnham Hanna Murger company
VS.. Edwin Earl, ct al; Barlow Ferguson
s5-Taylor Romney Armstrong company
vs.. Prussian National Insurance conn
pany; Jas. II. Movie, H: 5. McCalium,
G. W. Meyer. W. c. Kelley, Geo ives
36-Jabez Taylor VS.. Allen FoWler ct
al; Kenner & Taylor, Walter Murphy
37-salt Lake Lithographing, company
ct al. VS.. hex Mine and Smelling COM
temore. Richards 6, Richards.
3S-Geo Stribley and company VS., u. 5.
Davis GherBy Cherry he Nst s n W Br Rhake
SgE y TaS,6 gonnef H W Mo 5Sde NJ '
= 4oNSait take CITY VS.. A. T. Schroeder;
W. G. Van Horne, Jones & Schroeder;
41-Thomas j. Parker vs.. Martin Mann
kin ct al: John NJ. Cannon, Brown &
42@Thomas Borlase vs.. o. G, Brown;
T. B. stephens, Booth. Lee & Gray
43-Charies Sleeves VS.. O. c.. Brown;
AP p IiepnsI Il. Young vs. Lov;na Sud-
bury ct al; Thomas Adams; Jones Il
Schroeder. ~
Lambert; Cherry & Cherry; John NJ
o4 asmPhineas Fl. Young vs.. Loyna a.
sudbury. ct all; Thomas Adams, Jones d
Schroeder. Ma
sen. ct al: ". H. Dickson; B. H. Jones,
4S-Goid and silver Elk. company vs..
Mercur Gold Mining company; ,i benn Tatt
& Sutherland, Marshall Royle, T.
Pierce ". II. Dickson,
49-Cottonwood Gold Mining and Milling
company VS.. W. r. Belcher; w. Z. HAM,
Geo. A. Burgon.
5OIDeseret Wooden Mills company w
Frederick Roberts; Jas. H. Moyle, Chas'
Baldwin. \,
BIB: k. Block and company Y vs. I,d NJ
LochwitZ; Geo. w. MoyeF, D. w. 'uuu
529 d ielr' Miller VS.. Glen Miller ct al;
Geo. p. Cost:gan, jr., Zane & Zane, Kit
chic < Ritchie, T. Pierce, Booth, Lee &
5sENational Bank of the REPUBLIC VS..
Joseph w. Naynes; Booth, Lee K Gray,
r. E. Shepard, Jones & Schroeder, ). III.
Lewis.
54-Central Trust company VS.. Utah
Central Railway company; Butler, Still
man & Hubbard, Bennett, Marshall IL
Bradley, Jones & Schroeder, p. L. VII
hams.
Morris Sommer, j. H. Murphy, Richards
& Richards.
p. w Aldrach ct al. Sutherland & Muir
ply, Jas H. Moyle.
SOLVER Ames End VS.. Union Pacific
Railway company; lie Grand Young, p.
L. Williams, Bennett. Marshall & Brad
5S-Frank Andrews ct al vs.. John b.
gan, ct all Williams Van Colt e. Suther-
land. Zane & Zane Dey & Street.
59-Frederick Walton VS.. Charles
Bartch: Sutherland & Murphy, LIE Grand
Young.
F. Pierce, Straup & Lippman.
61-Lucinda H. Lebcher vs.. John Beck;
Cherry & Cherry, Rawlins & Cr:tchlow
62-Northwestern Wheel and F. com
pany VS.. Salt Lake City Copper Mfg.
company; Loofbourow & Kahn, Dey IL
Street.
es-Thomas Allsop vs.. Mary A4IIlsop; Jas.
CID. c. Mclaughlin VS.. j. G.. Lam
bert ct al; Brown x Henderson, Rich
ards & Richards.
Stookey ct al. d. E. Richards, Williams,
Van Colt & Sutherland.
66-Sadies Kelsey VS.. Lewis P. Kelsey;
c. S. Narian, Dickson, Ellis & Ellis.
67-Utah Plumbing and Supply company
VS. l.. c. Karrick, ct al; Richards &
ri a I'd Sutherland e