The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1902-12-18
THE DISTRICT COURT.
Much Argument About the injunction
Of w. T. Davis, the cattIeman.

Almost all day yesterday was TAX
en- up In the court by the attorneys on |
both sides of the case entitled w T. |
Davis vs.. J. Blair Shoenfelt. an in
junction suit
W. O. Davis Of Gainesville repre-
sents the plaintiff in this case, and
some time ago secured a temporary
injunction before Judge Townsend
against the defendant removing any
of his cattle from the Indian Terri
tory.
Mr.. Davis now asks the court to
make the injunction perpetual He
spoke at length on the subject and As
sistant United States Attorney j. e.
Humphrey ably showed up the other
side OF the case. The case came near
occupying the entire day, and when
the arguments were In Judge Town
send requested both sides TO prepare
briefs and submit them and he would
then look into the merits Of the case
and render his decision later
This morning the petit jury was call
ed and organized
w. II. Underwood. Sylvan: Sac
Tate, Nebo; Sam Hodges. Norton. and
George Murray Of Berwyn failed to
answer TO their names and the court
imposed a fine of $40 on each.
Con-, ..v-f.f,w.f.t1 o. ..g,1.. t.a.. 1. 80,
attended to.
In the case of w. +. Breedlove VS..
NJ. J. Breedlove, suit for divorce, T.
Chapman, an attorney of Silo Springs,
Ark, came forward as a representative
of the defendant and asked permission
to file an answer TO plaintiff. The de-
fendant asked the court to grant her
alimony. attorneys fees and other
monies, claiming that plaintiff. who
Is the proprietor of a drug store in
| Dougherty, with a stock of about
$1,000 worth of goods, is plenty able
to pay same; that plaintiff has 1925
of her money now.
l. r. Mason, attorney for plaintiff
asked for time to show that defen-
dants allegations we're wholly untrue
and alleged that he could show that
plaintiff was about as poor as the de-
fendant. He was given until o'clock
to make his showing.
The following cases on the docket
were continues
| Westheimer & Daube VS.. Puff Lolly.
United States VS.. Harris Jones.
United States VS.. A. w. Morey.
United States VS. VIII Carson.
/ j. A. Bodovitz VS.. j. w Ellis ct al
Joseph Weiss VS.. j. w. Ellis ct al
Geo. w. McMillon VS. Bill Berry
United States VS.. Lee Brown.
II. l.. Howard VS. VIM. Bratcher
The following cases were passed on
the docket:
l.. o. Moore VS.. S. w. weeden; dis
missed
United States VS.. T. B. Kidd; dis
missed.
The following equity cases were
continued:
United States VS. Dan Askew ct al.
ten days to answer.
United States VS.. II. p. Mitchell
United States VS.. Joe Abels.
The following equity cases were
passed on today:
Blanch Garrett VS.. W., NJ. Hawkins
judgment by default for possession
for plaintiff, damages waived.
United States VS. John +. Finley e
al judgment by default for p'aintif
against defendant j. l.. Brock.
United States VS.. w r. Holcourt q
al judgment for plalntiff against b
F Driggers.
United States VS., G. w Baker
- judgment by default for plaintiff fol
possession of premises, waving judg
ment
NJ, l.. Garrett ct al VS.. G. w. Benthu
!. SEN Judgment by default for plain
tin for possession of premises, walv
ing damages.
Scarr & O'Connor Co. VS. F. Fini,
Fox; Judgment by default for plaintin
. ---------
Ladies. come to Kahn's and see III,