The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-10-02
SUPREME COURT CASES
FOR OCTOBER TERM
FOrty-0ne Matters Are on
the Docket for Con-
SideratiOn.

The Supreme court docket for the
October term shows the following set
ting of cases:
October S-State of Utah, respond
ent, vs. Ayel NJ. Thompson. appellant; !;
State of Utah, appellant, VS.. Clyde
Hows- William Watson, respondent; in
the matter of Albert E. Mill, habeas
corpus,
October 9-State ex rel. Emma K
Judge, Third Judicial District court,
Salt Lake county, mandate; Frank
Hoffman, petitioner, VS.. t. D. Lewis,
Judge, Third Judicial District court,
Salt Lake county, certiorari; III the
matter of the application OF Thomas
Marionaaux for writ Of mandate
against State Board of Examiners,
mandate.
October l0-Jcns Nielsen, respondent,
VIZ. s. A, Henrichson, appellant; Harlan
Loofbourow, respondent, VS.. Ctab
Light and Railway company, appellant;
James w. Hogan, appellant, vs. J. e..
Cahoon, respondent
October i'll. W. Little and Jesse
w. Little, co-partners, respondents, vs..
Henry Blank, appellant; Mrs, T. l. M;
Smith, respondent, VS.. the Mine and
Smelter Supply company, appellants; :.
A. McCollom, respondent, VS.. the South
ern Pacific company, appellant.
October l2-Agness w. Fitzgerald,
RESPONDENT. vs.. the Southern Pacific
company, appellant; 7. M. Mathis, re-
spondent, VS.. the Southern Pacific com
panv, appellant; Gus. A. Fuller ct al,
respondents, VS.. Milo Sharp ct al, ap-
pcllants.
snondents. vs.. Robert Gorlinsky ct al,
appellants; A. R. S. Smith, appellant,
vs.. Gideon Avord, respondent; Bengt.
Johnson, respondent, vs.. Abram b.
Johnson, appellant.
liant. VS.. Union Pacific railroad, re-
spoDdent; Salt Lake Investment COM
pany, y corporation. respondent, vs.;
Jesse NJ. Fox, appellant; Eureka Eli
Mining company, respondents, VS.. Bul-
enf, ys. l.. E. Cassdy and Laura J.,
Casady. appellant; Dolly MeCashland,
appellant, VS.. p. J., keogh and h, >,
Wright, respondents; NJ, @. Phillip, ad-
ministrator of the estate of Louls by
ans and j. A. Irwin, appellant VS.
Simon Bamberger and o. j. Salisbury,
respondents.
pellant. VS.. Oscar Beebe, Sheriff of En-
erv county, respondent; G. f. Felt, U.
L. Felt Lumber company, appellant, VS..
A. Cook and A. c. Rainey, respondents;
George Z. Lyon, respondent. vs.. MI
chael Mauss and Charles Brown, appel
lants.
October l9-W. A. Worthen and Will
liam Dtury. respondents, VS.. Peruvian
Consolidated Mining company, appel
liant; Frank Fritzhotfen, appellant, VS.
Sisters of Holy Cross hospital, respond
Josephine Taylor, respondent.
October 22-D. r. Morrison, respond
ent. VS.. SAP Pedro, Los Angeles d Salt
Lake Railway company, appellant, the
Empire Construction company, defend
ants; Francis J. France. respondent, VS..
Salt Lake & OgIen Railway company,
appellant; r. II. CoS-rel, respondent, VS.
Alexander Pickering, appellant;
October 23-F. p. Smith, WIRE ana
Iron Works, appellant: VS.. ), ii; Bow
man. respondents; Dillon Implement
company, respondent, VS.. G. r. Cleve-
land and #. D. P. II. Cleveland Com
mission company, appellant; IN the
matter Of the estate of John K. Park,
deceased, Annie T. Hilton, appellant,
Us. :. w. Stewart, executor, respondent.
October 24-Jennie Edgar ct al, APP
pellaut. VS.. Rio Grande Western Rail
way company, respondent; FolkeT-
Scowcroft Lumber company, respond
ent. VS.. Mary f. Vance ct al, appel
liant; F. Garcia & Co., appellant, VS..
j. T. Free and Susie e, Free, respond
October 95-Honerine Mining and
Milling company ct al, appellant, VS.
TaIlerday Steel Pipe and Tank company
ct al, respondents; J, /. Lawson, appel
LIANT. VS.. Robert B. Trip ct al, re-
spondents,