Arizona republican., 1902-05-18
DAY IN COURT
A Great Volume of Business Turned
 Off Yesterday.

IL was expected that the case of (. Rodney Mcdonald, taxpayer, against r. C. Norris and the other members of the board of supervisors and their bOndsmen would come up on law day yesterday in district court on demur- rers which had been filed a week ago. However the demurrers by the super visors and the United States Fidelity and Guaranty company were with drawn and the case will go to trial on it's merits. The object of this action. as has been hitherto explained, is to recover from the members of the board of supervisors money authorized to be paid by them on account Of the water storage commission. the plaintiff con- tending that the law under which the commission is constituted is invalid.
 Another matter of public interest eX- pected to come up on demurrer was the case of the county against County Recorder E. F. McFan to recover cer- tain fees which the plaintiff contends he should have turned into the county treasury but which were withheld by him for the reason that the disposition of the fees was not clearly prescribed by the legislature. In this case the hearing of the demurrer was reset for next Saturday and Judge Eibbey was entered as attorney for the plaintiff.
 There was a great mass of other business but none of it was of start ling importance. In the case of James A. Day vs. J. H. Bradley, dispute over lands in the Buckeye country, the hearing of a demurrer was continued to May 19. The trial of the Sonora De- velcpment company against J. Diaz Prieto was set for June 19. The de- fendant was formerly Mexican consul at Phoenix. A year ago he entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to use his influence to secure certain con- sessions in the state of Sonora. A sum of money was set aside for the pay ment of his expenses and a block of stock was deposited in the Phoenix Ma tional bank, its delivery to him being conditioned upon the securing by Prieto of the concessions. He failed to secure them and suit was brought against him for the recovery of the money and the stock from the bank, all of which was resisted by the de- fendant
 In the case of s. F. Fitchett vs the Southern Pacific company, a demurrer, Q motion to strike out and a motion for
 
 ted. The demurrer was withdrawn in the case of the Grand Lodge Of the Knights of Pythias vs. the United States Fidelity and Guaranty company. In this case the plaintiff was the guar antor of Ed. Butts, Jr., a defaulting grand officer of the lodge. The defend- ants contention is that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. \ tn ct 70 were argued in the damage suit of Re hecca Salari Vs. Dr. W. C. Robbins. In the case of W. E. Thomas vs. J. ". Crenshaw. eXecutor of>the estate of l.. H. Orme ct al a demurrer was argued and submitted. Judgment for the plaintiff on findings of fact was rendered in the case of Charles L. Hall Vs. J. C. Goodwin. \ motion for a cost bond was granted in the case of L. B. Talley Vs. F. NJ. AIognett. Judgment for the plaintiff in the case of Charles Peterson Vs. Paul J. Peterson to quiet title. In the case Of A. J. Edwards. administrator of the estate of F. P. Hayden. Vs. Hannah T. Simms, there was a judgment for the defendant sus- taining her homestead exemption. This was an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage given Hayden by the late Colonel T. T. Simms upon certain prop erty north of the city. It was shown at the trial that some years before the mortgage was given Colonel Simms had made declaration of a homestead in the case of this property.
 In the matter of the claim of F. L. Brill against the estate of James Roarke. the plaintiffs claim was allow ed for $415. The claimants daughter was the administratriX of the estate but the business of the office was trans acted by the claimant, and in the final report of the administrative there was an item of about S1600 to cover the services of the claimant. The item was disallowed. but the probate court gave the claimant permission to sub init claim. He did so. The amount of it was somewhat less than the amount of the original item. It was | objected to by the present administra- tor of the estate on the ground that some of the services for which pay was demanded came within the duties l of the administra triX who had already received her commission. Tine case of John Pike vs. James T. Gibson was
 a dispute about a couple of horses which the defendant had bought of | Charles Fitch, who is not now in the country. The plaintiff claimed the | horses and said that they were neve. the property of Fitch. He sued for the possession of them and for damages.
 Judgment was given him yesterday for
 their possession or value. damages, and ! his costs. In the foreclosure suit of
 L. H. Landis Vs. Ella Franklin the
 plaintiff was given judgment. the de- l fendant's counter claim was dismissed
 and the complaint was sustained A
 stay of execution for thirty days Was
 granted. Tn the case of Moses Hughes
 Vs. C. F. Philes the plaintiff was given l judgment and mechanics lien was
 ordered decreed. An order was made | for the appointment of an agent fo1 1 Henry Wilson, an inmate of the peni-
 tentiary. At the time Wilson was sent
 to the penitentiary he had begun es- 1 tablishing a homestead entry He
 petitioned the court for the appoint
 lnent of his wife to sign papers and
 proceed with the entry.