The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-05


General ImpOrtance-The State
Interested Directly or Indirectly
in Quite a Number of Suits
when They Are Heard.
The October term Of the supreme
court convened yesterday morning at
II o'clock with a fair sized calendar.
The morning session was held in the
house of representatives, where the 26O
cases on the docket were set for hear
Ing At the session during the after
noon Ill the supreme court chambers,
a half-dOZen cases were submitted on
brief, and when the court meets this
morning it will be to start on the cal
endar which was arranged yesterday.
AS compared with the April term
there are but few important cases to
be considered by the court at this seS-
sion. The state is interested in twenty
one cases, but none of any sweeping
Importance. A case Of local interest
in which the state figures is the suit Of
A w NOriI son, an old soldier, against
John Copeland ct. al, to determine the
validity of the lawn giving old soldiers
the preference in local municipal APP
pcirtm5nts. 1t is set for a hearing
Nov. IS.
The case of the city against the
Judges of the district court was set
for hearing on Dec. l. This is the case
when involves the salaries of the
judges of the district court for this
judicial district.
The balance of cases in which the
state has an interest are as follows
and have been set as indicated below:
State OF Minnesota, appellant, VS.. Mat Dunser
ct al. trustees and c. Theobout, pastor
of the ST. Anthony Catholic Church Of
N-,Ir-, gl,rofz NCHT
State of Minnesota. respondent, VS.. John
Grimes, Thomas Murphy and Eugene FAR
rel appellants. Nov. 4.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Hans j..
Johnson. appellant Nov. IS.
State of Minnesota. plaintiff; Herman B;
Kennebeck. intervenor, VS.. The Mers hants'
Bank of Lake City ct al, defendants; Mrs.
L. E. Pierce, intervening claimant appel
liant; Herman B. Kennebeck ct al, re-
spoudents. Oct. 81.
State ex rel. City of Duluth, relator, re-
sDondent VS.. st. Paul & Duluth R. r. Co.
ct al, defendants; st. Paul & Duluth R.
R. Co.. n. p. RY. Co., appellants. Dc. g.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Jos. Eek
ert appellant. Nov. IA.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Peter
Nelson, appellant. Nov. q:
State of Minnesota. plaintiff, VS.. Geo. M.
Hunt ct al, defendants. Nov. %.
State of Minnesota, rel. Railroad and
Warehouse Commission, appellant, VS.. W.
w Cargll Company, q corporation, re-
state, ex rel. A. W. Mortenson, respondent,
VS.. John Copeland ct al, appellants. Nov
Is.
State of Minnesota respondent, VS.. K. K.
Austin. appellant. Nov IA.
State of Minnesota. respondent, VS.. John
Walterstradt, appellant. Nov. H.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Alexan-
der Messolongitis, appellant. Oct. Is.
State of Minnesota. respondent, VS.. John
Santrizos, appellant. Oct. 2S
In re. taxes delinquent st. Louis county,
State of Minnesota, plaintiff VS.. West Du-
luth Land Company, objector. Nov. 10.
State Of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Ashley
c. Riggs. appellant. Nov. 10.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Paul j.
Petit appellant Nov H.
sta:e of Minnesota, respondent. vs. o. P.
Johnson, appellant. Nov. IA.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. John
Berndgen, appellant. Nov. 90