The Wichita daily eagle., 1903-04-21
NEW OFFICERS
IN CHARGE
lContinued from MD page)

Continued from fifth page)
the time of making this report has not
done so.
No. 81 es3. This was an action in which
the plaintiff claims damage in the sun
of $500 for injuries alleged TO have beer
received b. her from a fall on side
walk near the intersection of Main anc
William streets. \ demurrer was inter
posed by the city to the petition of the
plaintiff and the same was sustained by
the court; whereupon the plaintiff's at
torney announced that he would dismiss
the case A journal entry to that effect
should be prepared and filed in the case
No q S35. Lewis Shank VS. the city OF
Wichita. This is an action in which the
plaintiff claims 5000 damages on ac-
count Of the discontinuance of the bridge
over the Arkansas river at Second street.
The case is now pending upon motions.
No. Q. .10O> Elizabeth Howell VS.. the
city Of Wichita, ct al. This is an action
brought by the plaintiff against the city
and members of the board of health TO
recover the sum of 5000 for damages on
account of alleged injuries received by
her from the alleged negligent acts of
the citv and the members of the board of
health, by reason of her being confined In
the detention hospital while she was af-
flicted with smallpox. The case is not
yet at issue.
No. 22.023 Ossio Raymond VS.. the
city Of Wichita. ct al. This is an action
in which the plaintiff seeks to quiet her
title to a strip OF land 81 feet wide by
>431 feet long on the north side of Doug
las avenue. between Wichita street and
the Arkansas river. The suit is based
upon the claim OF the plaintiff that this
portion of Douglas avenue was never
dedicated to the public and that she IS
the owner Of the fee title to the same.
The case has been referred to Judge Gil
lette of Kingman county, and will be for
trial as soon as he can arrange to come
TO Wichita to hear the same.
No. p. .276 Ossie A Raymond VS.. the
city Of Wichita. This is an action in
volving the same question that is raised
in the preceding case except that the
plaintiff in the second action brings suit
in ejectment to recover the possession of
the same property described in case No.
q .023. This case has also been referred
10 Judge Gillette and will be heard by
him as soon as arrangements can be
made for him to come to Wichita to try
the cases.
No. %, 4l6. Verde F. Critics VS.. the city
of Wichita. This is an action in which
the plaintiff claims damages from the
city In the sum of $4,000 for alleged in
juries received by her from falling into
q cellar-way on the west side of the
Sheetz building. This case has been
signed for trial and is set for hearing on
the 2Sth day of this month.
No. p 3S4. The city of Wichita VS.. the
Missouri and Kansas Telephone company
ct al. This action is brought on behalf
of the city for the purpose of procuring
a judgment of custer against the tele-
nh md 70 Il
pany from maintaining it's telephone lines
and poles upon the public streets and al
leys of the city on the ground that the
telephone cOmpany's franchise has ex-
plred and that it has no legal right to
occupy the streets without the consent
of the mayor and council. The case is
pending upon demurrers to the petition
by the defendants.
The following cases appealed from the
police court are also pending in the dis
trict court, viz:
No. 2l.755. City of Wichita VS.. J. w.
Bays.
No. 21.756. City of Wichita VS.. George
w. BE Hett
No. 2l,75S. City of Wichita VS.. DR.. J.
II. Fordyce.
No 22,c62. City of Wichita VS.. L. f. |
Duggan.
No. 22.154 City of Wichita VS.. L. F.
Duggan.
No. 22.2S4. City of Wichita VS.. Gordon
No. 22,2sl. City of wichita VS.. L. F.
Duggan.
No. ., ,2s2 City of Wichita VS.. William
Pettigo.
No. %, ,s1. City of Wichita VS.. L. F. !
Duggan. {
No. 22,452. City of Wichita VS.. L. F.
Duggan.
No. 22.45S City of Wichita VS.. Louis
Ebert.
No. .. 454 City of Wichita vs.. Alfred
Norton.
The case Of the Rock Island Lumber
and Manufacturing company VS. S E
Jocelyn. and the Fourth National bank
as garnishee. in which the city fled an
claiming the funds garnished in
the hands Of the bank as successor to
the board Of police commissioners of the
city of Wichita, has been appealed 10
the supreme court Of the state. where
II is now pending.
IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
COURT.
No. pa. Old Colony Trust company et
nj Us. the city OF Wichita This was an
action brought by the bondholders of
the Missouri and Kansas Telephone com
pany 10 enjoin the city and its officers
from interfering with its telephone poles
and wires upon the streets and alleys Of
the city. The issues have been made up
IN this case and the case was tried upon !
q stipulation as To the facts. before the
Hon. J. II. Rogers. judge Of the circuit
court of fhe limited States for tho dis