The Arizona sentinel., 1904-04-20

were also appealed.
 NJ. l.. Molina vs. John Stoffela- ejectment suit; dismissed by stipula tion of parties.
 A. G. Fraker vs. the Irrigation, Land and Improvement Discontinued.
 Jiles R. Cunningham vs. same com pany-dismissed by stipulation; settled out of court.
 Frank Webster vs. same company dismissed by stipulation; settled out of court.
 Wash NJ. Gay vs. same company continued.
 O. A. Pease vs. George Olsen-suit to quiet ttitle-continued.
 John w. Darlington vs. Eugene s. Ives and Anna w. Ives-suit on prom issory notes for $1, 118; continued on mo- tion of defendant.
 K. F. Sanguinetti vs. Eugene $. Ives action for debt of s125; continued for term by stipulation.
 J. W. Darlington vs. Mel Greenleaf
 suit on promissory notes; dismissed on motion of plaintiff.
 T. A. White vs. Irrigation, Land and Improvement Company. This is an action brought by plaintiff to recover damages claimed in sum of S3,624 on account of defendant company's canal crossing his land. The case came up for hearing Thursday and the trial by jury-lasted three days, the jury returning a verdict for plaintiff and allowing damages in the amount of 5000. On Saturday defendants attorneys moved that the verdict be set aside and asked for new trial. The court grant ed the motion and set the verdict aside on the grounds that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. The ev- idence showed that the land actually occupied by the canal was fl acres. and plaintiff proved the land was worth s20 per acre. Although the contention was not sustained that contiguous land had deteriorated by reason of the canal the court was of the opinion that nom- inal damages in the sum of $25 for the whole tract and $S5 for land actually covered by canal would be fair compen- sation. The case will be retried at the December term
 Thomas Blakely vs. Arizona Giant Copper Co.-continued.
 The Calkins Company vs. the Socor- TO Gold ompany-continued.
 Yuma Valley Union Land and Water Co. vs. California Development Co. An action for damages in sum of &23, | GOO sustained in loss of dredger which , sank while in hands of defendant com pany. The case was continued, it be- , ing expressly stipulated that it would be the first case to be taken up during
 the December term.
 H. H. Handley vs. Palornas Canal ] Co.-settled out of court. Eugene s. Ives vs. J. W. Darlington . libel suit in which plaintiff brings action for damages in sum of S25, 1000:
 continued upon motion of plaintiff.
 Cash M. Smith vs. Ward Priest ' cjectment suit; continued. :, $. Williams vs. Yuma Valley Union l Land and Water Co.-eontinued. , Pedro Aguallo vs. Elmira Aguallo- t divorce suit; continued. !, Yuma Valley Union Land and Water : Co. vs. Irrigation, Land and Improve. ment CO.-cOntinued.
 t N. c. Nelson vs. Palomas Canal Co.,
 temporary injunction dissolved and 5 plaintiff allowed six months in which to amend complaint. : R. $. Hatch vs. John, GanGolfo-in. = junction suit-continued. l Jose Salazar vs. Juanita Salazar- di = vorce for plaintiff.
 : Louise Willwebber vs. Chas. F.Will . webber-divorce suit.--cOntinued; nc s service. The session laws of 190c = changed revised statutes of 1901 so as 7 to make time to answer thirty days in P stead of twenty after completion o 2 service by publication. In this case
 the service was just two days short O. - the time required.
 A petition was filed in the district court on Friday last by Franci! George Packer and Natalie Packer his wife, praying to have their name!
 legally changed to Francis Nigel dt ; Brullier and Natalie de Brullier. The de Brulliers were an ancient, aristo
 cratic French family, so say the petiti s tiOners, and Mrs. Packer being tn, only surviving descendant, desired the
 change in order to fulfill promise 'i made her mother to perpetuate tht good old name and not let it die out
 The petition was granted by the court
 Town of Yuma vs. John Gandolfo
 This is a suit brought to compel de g fendaut to remove his fence which i u built partly across Second street, tbt Q city desiring to open up and extend tht
 street. Attorneys in the case asked ' the court to pass on the question as tt l. the validity of d certain ordinance clos s ing First avenue and extending Second F. street through defendants lot to cente
 of alley in block 45. The court, thougf
 not stating direct opinion as to tht
 validity of the ordinance, said that tn,
 town could not take private propert,
 f,, ;tI