The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1897-03-11

TRIALS.

No. %, G. s. Hamill, administrator,
VS.. P. H. Rasche; judgment for de-
PENDANT.
No. 81, g. S. Hamill, administrator,
VS.. J. W. Hart, trustee; judgment for
defendant.
No. %, Hilda Erickson VS.. G. S.
Hamill, administrator; Judgment for
plaintiff.
No. 81, The Merchants and Mechan
les Savings Bank of Grafton, W. Va,
VS.. j. c. Anderson; Judgment for
plaintiff.
No. 43, Knight & Couch VS.. j. G.
Anderson and others; judgment for
plaintiff for $150.45.
No. A, J. L. McRobie VS.. Nethken
Bros; judgment for plaintiff for
$21.5O.
No 40, Rogers Iron Co. VS.. John
Shartzer; judgment plaintiff for
$426.32.
No. 40, E. J. FredIock VS.. Mary E.
Chisholm; judgment for defendant.
No. SO, John Shartzer, receiver, VS..
NJ. L. Selby, judgment for defendant.
No. 50, Albertype Co. VS.. H. j. May
ers and others; judgment for plaintiff
and motion for new trial.
No. 60, Simon Bittinger and others
VS.. James Bowser, administrator; held
sub curia.
No. 81, John Shartzer, receiver, VS..
A. c. Holland; judgment for plaintiff.
No g. Arthur Townshend, admin
istrator, VS.. Jas. L. Burley and others;
Judgment for plaintiff for $68.
No. G5, Baer Sons Grocery Co. VS.,
John Shartzer; Judgment for plaintiff
for $22337.
No. 70, Grotgan, Lohr & Co. vs.J Ohm
Shartzer; Judgment for plaintiff for
$64341.
No. "A, R.T. McNichol VS.. C.T.West;
judgment for plaintiff for S.
No. Is, John Hudack VS.. John Dun
hill; Judgment for plaintiff for S4G8.S0
No. n, Antonio Nomak VS.. John
Dunhill; judgment for plaintiff for
$237.7O.
No. IS, John Terifag VS.. John Dun
hill; judgment for plaintiff for $33S.17.
No. 10, Stefan Tey VS.. John Dunhill
judgment for $702.37,
No. 80, Antonio Nowork and others
VS. John Dunhill; Judgment for plain
tiff for $595.
No. 81, j. Richardson & Co., vs,Sin-
cell Bros; Judgment for plaintiff for
$12O35.
No. 80, P. T. Cartwright VS.. VIM.
Hooking, garnishee; judgment for
plaintiff for $296.
No. SO, L. H. Friend VS.. Maryland
Supply Co.; Judgment for plaintiff
&21O.
No. 81, Franyheim, Geisy 4 Faris
VS.. w. H. Malette; Judgment for plain
tiff for 450
No. 100, J. II. Wilson & Bro. VS.. T.
NJ. Bray; judgment for $124.30.
No. 1O1, \. j. Bates & Co. VS.. Mary
land Supply Co.. Judgment for plain
tiff for $11S.33
No. 107 r. Sutton s. Co. VS. L. II.
Friend and others; judgment for
plaintiff for S134,0G.
No. ITO, The Davis National Bank
of Piedmont, w. Va, VS.. John Shartz-
er and others Judgment for plaintiff
for $107.2S
No. 113, L. Strous & Co. VS.. Z. !.
West; Judgment for plaintiff.
No. 11G, w. d. Hughes VS.. Henry
E. Fe!ty; judgment for plaintiff for
1929, OF.
No. iii, The Kenneweg Co. VS..
Clark & McCulloh; Judgment for
plaintiff.
No. 121, The First National Bank
of Piedmont, w. Va. VS.. G. W. De
lawder and others; judgment for
plaintiff for $3,5S8.86.
No. 1913, Catherine Ault VS.. J. J.
Beeghley; Judgment for plaintiff for
$11050.
No. 1870, The Garrett County Bank
VS.. &. w. Delawder and others:
judgement for plaintiff for %102.84.
No. 131, Carey eros. and others VS..
F. Felty & Bro; judgment for plain
tiff for $174,7G.
No. al, Geo. w. Legge vs.. John
Shartzer and others; Judgment for
plaintiff for $500.
No. 149, John j. Humbird VS..
Mayor and City Council of Cumber-
land; Judgment for plaintiff for 3d.
031.19.
CRIMINAL APPEARANCES.
No. 26, State VS.. Benz, Buckalew;
assault; plea of guilty; fined IS and
costs.
No. 80, State VS.. Geo. Lee obtaining
liquor for minors; found guilty and
fined $50 and costs.
No. 81, State VS.. Lee True; disturb
ing religious worship; found guilty
and sentenced to 8 months i'll House
of Correction.
No. SO, State VS.. Emmanuel Custer;
larceny; not guilty.