Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1900-05-06
ORDERS IN CIRCUIT COURT.
JUDGE HERvEY HANDS Down A
VERY INTERESTING ORDER IN
THE CASE Of
HUBBARD AGAINST BRIDGE co.
The Motions of Defendant were
Overruled and Exceptions Taken
Several Motions Made and Orders
Entered I'm Cases of Minor Inn
pOrtance Yesterday.

Yesterday was motion day in the
Circuit Court, and a number of orders
We're handed down. One of the most
important of these was given by Judge
Hervey. in the case of William P.
Hubbard VS.. Wheeling Bridge Com
pany. The full text of the order fol-
lows:
This 5th day of May, in the yeal
1900, came the parties. by their attor-
neys and the court having maturely
considered the objections of the plain.
tin to the three special pleas offered
onthe Sth day of March, 1900. TO be
filed by the defendant, and TO the fl
ing of the said account of set-offs.
doth sustain the plaintiffs objection
to said special pleas numbered two
and three, and rejects said two spe-
cial pleas. TO each of which judg-
ments and rulings of the court the de-
PENDANT severally excerpts, and. the
court doth override the plaintiffs OBJ
lection to the filing of the said special
plea numbered four and to the filing
of the said account OF Offset.
And the defendant now moves and
applies to this court on the grounds
and facts stated and appearing by the
affidavit of G. B. Caldwell, now filed,
in the affidavits of Henry Schmulbach
of April 14th, 1899, and March End,
1900, and in the other papers, now Of
ferred in support of the motions here
matter mentioned and in the record
and papers in this case, for an order
staying proceedings in this action in
assumpsit until the next term of this
court in order to allow time for an APP
plication by petition, to be made by
the defendant, the Wheeling Bridge
Company, for such appeal and super
sedeas, and if the same is granted. I'M
til the decision of said Supreme Court
of Appeals of the said suit In chancery
mentioned in the order of March 3,
1900, in this action by law. The
Wheeling Bridge Company further
moves that II such stay of proceedings
until the next term OF this court is re-
fused. proceedings may be stayed by
this court in said action in assumpsit
for a reasonable time, TO be fixed by
the court. to allow application TO be
made for such appeal and supersedeas.
If the first of the said motions is
granted, defendant hereby gives notice
that an application will be made for a
stay of proceedings in this action I'M
til such appeal and supersedeas are de-
cided by the Supreme Court. Defendant
further says that If the second OF the
said motions is granted by this court
and an appeal and supersedeas is grant
ed by the Supreme Court, a motion will
be made in this case for a stay OF pro-
ceedings until such appeal and super
sedeas is decided by the said Supreme
Court. A duly authenticated copy OF
the bill in chancery in said cause and
of the answer of William p. Hubbard
thereto and OF the DEGREES In said chan
Gerry cause of the 18th of January, 1900,
and of March 3, 1900. are iiled In sup
port of said motions. And the mo-
lions having been argued by counsel
for both plaintiff and defendant, the
plaintiff Directing to the same being
granted. the said motions are oyerruled
by the court, to each of which rulings
and judgments OF the court the de-
PENDANT excepted and filed it's bill OF
| exceptions thereto. and prayed that
the same might be signed and scaled
by the court and made a part of the
record In this case, which is here ac-
cordingly done"
There was an order of dismissal in
the case Of Ogle VS.. Bachman and Land
messer, involving some matters in oil
development.
In the case of NJ. L. David VS.. Elm
, Grove Coal Company. demurrers were
| argued and submitted.
In the case of Robert T. McNichol vs..
b. Walker Peterson. the motion OF de-
PENDANT TO require a more partic-
ular statement Oh his claim. was sus-
tanned. and the plaintiff was granted
ten days in which TO file said amend
ed bill.