Arizona republican., 1904-05-29

agent, had loaned $1,00O on the stock of the Mcclure Pharmacy, which failed in business some months ago. In the meantime Col. Christy died and the de- ltails of the transaction on his part were not available. Mrs. Brown denied that Col. Christy was her agent and brought suit against the bank to re- cover
 In the case of the territory. ex rel J. E. Walker, county treasurer, versus the Bartlett Heard Cattle Co., the de- murrer was overruled. This case is a sort of friendly suit brought to es- tablish the condition of not only the defendants lands but large acreage of other lands similarly situated, in respect of back taxes. The suit is for the collection of taxes assessed prior to 1893 on lands that had been sold to the territory for taxes and later passed to the present owners through conveyance of the interest of those in whose names the land had been. The legislature in 1893 passed an act that all taxes prior to that time. on lands bid in by the territory, should be re- moved or wiped out by the passage of the act, and the transfer of property was made later with that understand ing. But the last legislature passed an act that all lands previously sold to the territory should be placed on special back tax book and in the com pilation of this volume the treasurer had to list the lands in question. He now wants an order of the court re- specting the maner of their disposition, whether by proceeding to collect all back taxes or whether they shall not be considered as due and collectable.
 The case of George Mauk versus Wm. Evans was continued to June 4, for hearing on a motion.
 In the case of D. M. Purman versus Sheriff Cook ct al a motion to sub stitute the administratrix as plaintiff was granted.
 In the case of Thomas Murphy ct al versus the Eastern Sugar company, motion of the McClintic- Marshall com |pany for leave to bring suit was granted. whereupon was filed the suit described in another column
 In the case of J. Nj. Jamison versus the Black Warrior Copper company hearing a motion to dismiss was con- tInued to June 4.
 In the case of James McNaughton versus J. c. Hansen, demurrer was ioverruled. Tn the case of G. H. News holme versus the Salt River Valley Canal company. defendants motion to set aside verdict and for a new trial was argued and continued to June 4th for further argument.
 Motions in various other water cases were continued to the same date.
 Tn the water case of Charlotte F. Melck versus the Maricopa Canal company, a temporary injunction asked for by the plaintiff was allowed on lplaintiff giving a bond of $500. Argument on demurrer and applica- Ition for injunction was continued till May 31 in the case of the Phoenix Water company versus the city council ,of Phoenix.
 In the case of J. B. Wedgerworth versus r. c. Village, demurrer to com plaint, heretofore submitted, was over ruled.
 In the case of Tom l.. Mercer versus c. w. Mognett ct al, motion to strike, heretofore submitted. was overruled and the case set for hearing June ?.
 Motion for new trial was denied in the case of L. F. Higgins versus Laura Biliups administratriX.
 In the Goodwin -Pinney Ncases, a mo- tion to forecIose notwithstanding the verdict was denied and motion for new trial was granted.