The herald., 1895-10-07
THE STATE SUPREME COURT
That August Body Will Convene
Here on Monday Next
CALENDAR FOR THE TERM
A Number Of Important Cases Will Be
Passed Upon
The First on the List Il the Appeal Of John
Craig, the Triple Hurderer-Exam-
ination Of Applicants

ination Of Applicants
the supreme court of the state will
convene ia this city for the fall term next
Monday. October 14th. and continue in
session until the Goth. The first Jay, un
der the rules, court will convene in bank
for the purpose of hearing motions, and
attorneys are requested to have the dis
tirct and numbes Of cause printed on
their briefs. Tuesday will be devoted to
the examination of applicants for admls-
sion to practice the justices sitting in
bank and the examinations being con-
Quoted in open court. Wednesday the
calendar will be taken up and proceeded
with until 1t is concluded. Following is
the reuglar calendar as it has been ar
ranged by days:
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 16-IN BANK.
The People, etc., respondent, vs.. Craig,
appellant, Los Angeles county.
The People, ETC., res ondent, VS.. Thomp-
son, appellant. Los Angeles county.
w. B. Cullen ct al, respondents, VS..
The Glendora Water company, appellant,
Los Angeles county.
Stevens, respondent, VS.. Halman ct al,
appellants, Los Angeles county.
klauber ct al, appellants. VS.. Higgins
at al, respondents, San Diego county.
THURSDAY, OCT. lin BANK.
Broker. respondent, VS.. Papenhausen,
appellant, San Bernardino county.
| Simson. respondent. vs.. Ferguson, ap-
| pellalt, Riverside county.
Bigelow, respondent, VS.. Ballerlno, ap-
| pellant Los Angeles county.
| The remainder of the week is kept
| open for any matters that may come be-
| fore the court in bank.
~ r m
ONE.
| The People, etc., respondent, VS.. Bel
| lamy, appellant, San Bernardino county.
The People. etc., respondent, VS.. Conk-
| ling. appellant, San Benito county.
The People. etc., appellant VS.. knutte,
| respondent, San Francisco county.
The People, etc., respondent, VS.. Stern
berg, appellant, San Francisco county.
DEPARTMENT TWO.
| Albert, plaintiff, VS.. Hobler, defendant,
| Kern county.
Deacon. respondent. VS.. Blodget, ap-
| pellant, Kern county.
Bachman, appellant, VS.. Cathry ct al,
respondents, Kern county.
| Kimball. appellant. VS.. Richardson,
Klmball Co., respondents, Les Angeles
| county.
| Vaughn, appellant, VS.. Knowlton OF
al. defendants, E. H. McCnesney, re-
| spon 1ent. Los Angeles county.
| San Pedro Lumber company ct al, re-
| spondents, VS.. Reynolds ct al.,appellants,
| Los Angeles county.
| Craig, appellant. vs.. Hesperia Land
| geles county.
TUESDAY OCT. % - DEPARTMENT
ONE.
| YocR, respondent, vs.. Homo Mutual
Insurance company. appellant; Orange
! county.
| Sloane ct al, respondents, VS.. Southern
Pacific Railway company, appellant;
! Riverside county.
White, appellant, vs.. Taylor, respond
! ent, Riverside county.
Ryan, respondent, VS.. Holiday ct al,
Respondents; lngle, as. admin istratoi, ap-
| pel1ant: Riverside county.
Meacham, respondent, VS.. Bear Valley
Irrigation company, appellant; San Ber-
! nardino county.
| Muller, respondent. VS.. Rowell, appel.
| liant; San Bernardino county.
| Arbias, appellant. VS.. County OF San
| Bernardino, respondent; San Bernardino
| county.
DEPARTMENT TWO.
The People, etc.. respondent, vs.. Van
Eman. appellant; San Francisco county.
The People, ETC., rsspondent. vs..
| county.
! The People, etc.. respondent. VS.. Mar
shall, appellant; Riverside county.
| California Loan and Trust company,
appellant, VS.. Hammel. respondent Los
| Angeles county.
| Spence, executor, etc. respondent, vs..
Widney ct al, appellants; Los Angeles
| county.
Heliman, appellant. VS.. Shoulders, as
treasurer, ct al, respondents; Los An
| geles county.
Ryan, respondent, VS.. The Los Angeles
! Tca
lants; Los Angeles county.
The People, etc., respondent, VS.. Louie
Foo. appellant, Los Angeles county.
WEDN ESDAY, OCT. 23-DEPARTMENT
| ONE.
Hass, ct al, respondents, VS.. Mutual
Relief association of Petaluma, appellant;
| Los Angeles county.
| Gearsley, appellant, VS.. Sunset Tele-
| phone and Telegraph company, respond
| ents; Los Angeles county.
| Estate of Clos. deceased; Los Angeles
| county.
| Susskind. appellant. vs.. Hall, as
assignee, ct al, respondents; Los An
| geles county.
Gibson ct al, respondents, VS.. Wheeler
ct al, appellants; Los Angeles county.
| Sanchez, respondent. VS.. Grace Metho-
dist Episcopal church, appellant; Los
| Angeles county.
Reed. appellant, vs.. Cross, respondent;
Los Angeles county.
DEPARTMENT TWO.
Bernstein, respondent. vs.. Downs, ap-
| peilant; San Bernardino county.
Eames, appellant, VS.. Haver, respond
ent; San Bernardino county.
joins, respondent, VS.. HARRISON, appel
liant: San Diego county.
| DeLany, appellant vs.. Knapp ct al,
respondents; San Diego county.
| Runk, appellant, VS.. San Diego Flume
company ct al, respondents; San Diego
| county.
Rogers, respondent, VS.. Schuloenburg
ct al. appellants; San Diego county.
| O'Connor, receiver, respondent, VS.. Clark
ct al. defsnuants; Kimball, appellant
San Diego county.
| THURSDAY, OCT. 24.-DEPART.
MENT ONE.
| Hellnan, respondent. VS.. Merz ct al.
appellants, Los Angeles county,
Stewart responde nt VS.. Justices Cou TT.
Los Angeles township, appellant, Los
| Angeles.
| Hearne, respondent, vs.. De Young ct
| al, Appellants. Los ANGELES.
| Everett ct al. respondents, VS.. Los An
geies Consolidated Electric Railway COM
pany, appellant. Los Angeles.
Johnson. respondent, vs.. Thomas,
| ETC., appellants, Los Angeles.