The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-02-18
ANSWER IN SCOTT CASE
Has Been Filed in the United States
Court at Galveston.
THE CASE HAS BEEN CONTINUED
Until the Next Term for Servoe-Gen-
eral and Special Demurrers to the
Plaintiffs Petition.

Galveston. Texas, February 1.-THE
United States court convened this morning
The forenoon was devoted to mpanellng
the grand and petit julies.
The following bankrupts were also dis
charged: Charles b. Sale Houston j. II.
Black, Erwin, Grimes county; r. w. Jones,
Sherman; W. K. Lamb. Bowie; A. Q.
Nash, Sherman; E D. Woodbridge, Willis;
Meyer Schram, Galveston
The admiralty and equity docket was set
down for February 20.
The Huntsville Post was selected as the
publication in which notices in bankruptcy
in Walker county would be published here.
after. instead Of the Huntsville Item. which
was destroyed by fire.
The grand jury selected was as follows:
Ben Barry, Anuhuac; 7. Il Nelson, Span
ish Camp; j. D. Walker, Dodge; Sam
sartain, Howth; j. J. Plnchbach, Column
bus J. E. Billups, Edna; Morris Green
berg, Houston; Il. r.. Anderson, Navasota;
s. S. Fielder. Huntsville; Dab Jergins, Wal
isville; II. C. Still, Houston; Oscar Ellis
Morales; j. H. Berkeley, Montgomery
E. p. Rugeley, Bay City; Ben Guess, Ken.
dletoni Tom Gentry, Montgomery; j. A.
Malecck, Nelsonvile; c. c, Robinson, Mis-
souri, City. Norval Wilson OF Alleyton was
appointed foreman of the grand jury
The following orders were entered:
Ellen Connolly ct al vs.. Il. b. Baer, re.
celver Galveston City Railroad Company
dismissed by the plaintiff
Edward Gruis VS. Il. b. Baer receiver
Galveston City Railroad Company; set for
I february 10.
De Witt u. Corban VS.. r. b. Baer, re
ceivcr Galveston City Railroad Company
set for February 10.
William T. Sherwood ct al vs. Sovereign
Camp, Woodmen of the World; set for Feb
ruary Is.
George e. Hoyle ct al VS.. Galveston City
George E. Hoyle VS.. Galveston City
Railway Company ct al; dismissed by the
Frank Halwegler VS.. Il. B. Bser. feceiv-
er Galveston City Railroad Company; dis.
missed at defendants cost,
Louis Voight Us. southern Pacific Com
pany ct all dismissed.
Louis Pitt, by next friend, George Pitt.
Jr, VS.. Galveston City Railway Company
ct al: dismissed for want of prosecution
Michael McNaIley VS., j. D. McNalley'
&. L. scott VS. vs.. o. S. johnson ct al;
continued for service until next term.
John T. Bendleton, receiver, vs.. George
cost
John T. Pendleton, receiver, vs.. L. S.
Geers ct al; dismissed at plaintiffs cost.
John I. Pendleton. receiver, VS.. R. N.
Burt; dismissed at defecdant's cost.
John T. Pendeton, receiver. VS.. W r.
Young ct al; dismissed at defendants cost.
John I. Pendleton. receiver, VS.. w, r.
Wilson ct al: dismissed at defendants cost
John I. Pendleton, receiver. vs.. Mrs
Lucy F. Morton ct al; dismissed at defend
ants cost.
John r. Pendleton receiver. VS.. ]. v.
Morton ct ALI dismissed at defendants cost.
John 7. pendlcton, receiver, vs. Charles
r. Byrnes ct al; dismissed at defendant
cost.
John T. Pcndlcton. receiver VS.. 7. S.
Coleman ct al; dismissed at defendant :
John L. Pendleton. receiver. VS.. waiter
]. Smith ct al; dismissed at defendants
Lyon johnson and George A. Speers. re
Ceivers, vs. Louis II. CaTstens et al; dis
missed at defendants cost.
Answer Of the plaintiffs was filed today
| by the defendants In the ease Of &. !,
Scott VS.. a. s, johnson ct al Of Crimes
county. The defendants demur to the
| plaintiffs petition and to each separate par
agraph thereof and say that they neither
one nor all present against them any cause
Of action recoverable In law and upor
this they pray the judgment of tho court
And for special demurrer the defendants
soy that the third paragraph above the
first OF the plaintiffs petition in which hi
makes the statement naming some resolu
tons is wholly wanting in specifications as
| to time and place or nature or character OF
resolutions so as to notify these defendants
OF what he complains; that the second par
agraph on page . OF plaintiffs petition
where it Is said that after arranging said
violations and attempt by letters threat,
and otherwise to force plaintiff to leave
said county. is wanting in specifications as
| to what letter or who wrote and signed the
same; what threats or who made and com
municated the same and are therefore want
| ing Ia dcfniteness and certainty requisite
| to notify these defendants with what they
are charged in that regard.
That the portion Of the plastiff's pet'tIos
wherein it * charged that there were com
mitted murders of ten citizens OF Crime,
county is wholly wanting in specification nj
to who committed the murders though tn,
| plaintiff alleges that each of said offenders
are known to the officers of the county
the plaintiff being one of said officers. No
does the petition specify the persons muI
dcrel, so as to advise the defendants wit
what particular acts of violence they stsnt
charged or 70 defend against the same.
! Ot all which damurrers the defendant
praY the Judgment OF this court
Tho defendants deny al the allegation
IL; the plaintiffs petition and upon this pu
| themselves upon the court
The ease was continued today for service
until the next term OF court.