The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-06
A DAY IN THE COURTS.
"a VERY RARE PROCEDURE FILED IN
COUNTY COURT.
attorney /. 3, Moody, Tor First National
Bank. Files Bill Of lntsrpleader
Against G. Artg ct al

there was no session Of the Eleventh
district court YESTERDAY and n Is understood
nothing will be done In that court for the
remainder Of the week The entire time
OF Inc Fifty-6fth district court for yester.
Gay after motion hour wss taken up Ia
tne aesung OF the testimony In the cnse
VI Eaear a. Warwick against the Houston
hasf and West Texas Railway company.
~
Suege 5, II. Brashear as attorney for the
ticket brokers, Messrs. Wolf Alexander.
etc, Yesterday aled papers before Judge
Ashe Of the Eleventh district court asking
so Injunction restraining the corporation
court nom hearing the cases Of the City Of
Houston VS. |. L. Wolf c. j. Wolf, Mat
Cramer and Sam Alexander, charging them
with having violated the anti-tickets calpiug
ordnance recently enacted by the city
council OF Houston. The hearing OF Tits
application for an injunction was nxed by
Judge Ashe for Monday morning.
~
There was no session Of the criminal as
trict court yesterday. owing TO the absence
OF Judge Allen from the city, he being at
Beaumont under service Of the court as a
witness In the United States corcult court,
which Is In session there. As will be seen
from the telegram below, which was re.
celyed here late yesterday afternoon, there
will he no session Of the court today.
Judge Allen hopes, however, TO be excused
and return home tonight and with that In
view sent the telegram, which was fur
nished The, Post by Clerk Reynaud and
reads as follows.
O. E. Reynuud, Clerk Criminal District
Court, Houston, Texas
Beaumont, Texas December 5.-Case not
reached and eau not be In Houston tomor-
row Excuse jurors aud witnesses till Sat
urday morning, December I, at 0 o'clock.
A. G. Allen.
Judge vasmer. as will be seen by the
published proceedings transacted consider.
able business in the county and probate
courts The order entered In the matter
OF the estate Of George GoIdthwaite was
very long one. and only the meaning OF
the order Is published,
~
Yesterday afternoon 10 the county court
Mr., L, B. Moody, as attorney for the First
Natl, bank Of Houston, filed a bill Of
interpleader against G Artz and Mrs, Dora
Arts asking that they be brought into
court and compelled 10 ltigate between
themselves as to which one of the two is
eutited TO the sum OF S43O, which was on
deposit IN the hank, but which Mr.. Moody
as attorney Tor the hank paid into tn'
registry ot the court while this Is an
old and well established chsncery pro-
cedure yet Il Is one that has rarely ever
been resorted TO In this section. The case
hlcd yesterday may not be the hrst Of the
kind ever tiled here, but II is certainly one
Of the very few that have.
A few DAYS ago check was received from
Nj Art2 for the full amount on deposit.
The bank not knowing what TO do, called
upon It's attorney. Mr.. L. 3. Moody, related
to him the facts and advised With him The
result was Mr.. Mocdy's actions yesterday.
The bill Of interpleader hled yesterday vs.
as follows:
Texas, January term, 1902
No 5377.-First National Bank VS.. q.
Artz and Mrs Dora Artz.
To the County Court Of Said County
The First National bank Of Houston,
plaintiff complaining Of G. Artz and Mrs.
Nora ArtE defendants represents that
plaintiff and the defendants reside In Har-
rs county, Texas. but that the Defendant;
G. Artz. has recently departed from said
county and his whereabouts are unknown
to plaintiff, hut plaintiff is informed and
believes and so alleges that said defendant
can he found in Dallas county.
Paiptin further shows 70 the court that
II has In its hands to the credit or the
defendant &. Artz upon IT'S books the sum
by the defendant Mrs Dora Artz that the
said sum Of money Is 10 truth and IN fact
her separate property ana NOT the properly
Of the defendant G. Artz and has notified
plaintiff not 70 pay said sum IF mf-a or
any part thereof. upon the order Of the
defendant G.. ArtZ,
Plaintiff further represents n tho court
that II does not know 10 which of said
defendants the said sum of money belongs
hut alleges thar said sum ot money Is
claimed adversely 10 each other by each and
both Of said defendants.
Plaintiff further shows 10 the court that
II has pald into the registry Of this court
the said sum OF $3.50 and It iles this, its
original bill Of interpleader. and prays that
and iitigate between themselves the ques-
tiop OF the ownership Of said sum of
money and that plaintiff may be by dnal
judgment herein protected against the claim
Of each and both Of said defendants con
corning said sum Of money and for costs
Of suit and for general relief.
l. B. Moody.
Attorney for Plaintiff.