Arizona republican., 1900-11-25
NEWLY ARRANGED DOCKET
The Setting of Cases in District Court
 Yesterday.

Yesterday was law day in district court and as had been announced the chief business was the calling of the calendar for the sdtting of cases. 4 decrec of divorce on the ground of de- sertion and failure No support was vs. Joseph Le Cyr. In this case, as in others, Judge Street addressed a per- tinent question to the plaintiff: Did you come to this territory for the pur- pose of getting a divorce?" It is tie wish of the court that Arizona should not be mistaken for South Dakota by those ch1fing under the marital yoke.
 In the case of James c. Atherton vs. Edna w. Cotton and husband d Ge- mUrrer was argued and taken under advisement, and in the case of John Stewart va Melissa Delhi, judgment was rendered the plaintiff.
 The following cases were set for trial or otherwise disposed of: Isabel Retts vs. w. l.. Woodruq. atEninis- trdtor, November 30; Logan Cecil and Carroll Cecil vs. w. M. Bill lups, Dec mIber 2i; Joseph Slcss vs. tte Farmers and Merchants bank. De- cember 5; John Deere Flow company vs. II. E. Kemp ct al. same date; Ar thur J. Edwards, administrator, vs. Charles II. Simms et al, January 2; Az nes NJ. Edwards vs. John Edwards, De- cember 2f; the Atlantic Trust Co. vS. the Highland Land and Water Co, Jan uary 1: James C. Atherton vs. Edna w. Cotton ct al. December 4; the Farmers and Merchants bank vs. the Arizona Hardware company, December 3; Leo pold N. Requena, vs. Jennis Requena, January ?; w. l.. Pinnuey vs. D. w. Beiden, January 3; Charles w. Wait- man vs. J. E. Williams, ct al, Decem- Der ,; sI. A. Stanford vs. Ulrich Meyer, January 1 William H. StiIwell vs De- Muud Lumber Co, January [; William ]. Sutherland vs. Lillie E. Sutherland DecJ mber 1; Bartlett. Adams X O.. vs. the Arizona Canal O.. March 4; Will liam Billups vs. the Tempe Irrigating Canal O., William Billups vs the Western Extension of ,he Tempe Irri- gating Canal Co. and William Billups vs. the Southern Extension of the 1lempe Irrigating Canal Co, January s; Samuel Sagrist vs. E. ]. Skinner, January 9; A. RedewilF ys. C. w. Stevens, jury demanded by the de- fendant. Decemb 2S; Tine United States for the use Of w. J. Rainey vs. John E. Sprague ct al, January 10; Emma Blanche Harrington vs. P. K. Hickey ct al, January 1Oa M. Rosen- berg vs. M. F. Hurley ct al. January |; Henry M. Donnelly vs. Henry C. Blu ford ct al, January s; Margaret Me Keon ct al vs. c. H. Gray ct al. Decem- Der 6; Pearl McEwen vs. Oliver Me Ewen. January II; Lucy Ellen Gibson vs Jack Gibson. December 1; Utah IT, riSatinS Ditch Co. vs. Milo Shill, Jan uary ?; Teresa R. Quinenez vs. Apolina QuinenGZ, December 1; Charles NJ. smith vs. Marguerite Burnaido, Jan uary q: Charles H. Connolly vs. Statira Connolly, January 4; +. F. l.. Stegdll vs. Lorna StcSaH, December &; Nettie Ethel Jaqueitte vs William A. Jaquette, December l. The Arizona Water Works and Sewerage Co. vs. John G. Tilg,r, December '; William Melczer vs Rose McNamara, December 6; A. RedewiH vs. Clinton Campbell. January 3. Dun Ear vs. Holmes, December 5; King vs. Gilroy. January i; Mozier vs. Barkley, December ,; Forster vs. Roger. Decem- Der s.
 The following cases were continued for the term: Farmers and Merchants bank vs. G. A. Howe and l.. O. Guth- rie; Murphy, Grant & Co., vs. Ben Gold man; c. J. Williams vs. William Cris- mon; w. B. Long vs. JChn Roarke; John Marion Sears vs. the Grand Canal Co.,; Sadie P. Shill vs. Charles V. Shill.
 The following cases were dismissed on motion of plaintiffs or at their cost: J. H. Woods Vs. Ed w. Jones; E. F. Wocddell vs. H. l. Latham. adminis- l;rator; J. M Ford vs. Edward Butt ct al.
 At the request of large number of m5mbers of the bar Judge Street or dered that the court take a vacation during the holidays.