The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-01-24
southern Railroad company. Judgment f
the defendant.

damages. The plaintiff alleges he was a
| passenger on one of the cars of the de-
! PENDANT company riding between Ensley
and Birmingham, when he was assaulted
and beaten by two Of the conductors en-
| ployed by the company who attempted to
eject him from the car without cause or
David S. Greed vs.. the Birmingham
Southern Railroad company. Plaintiff al
1eges that ne was severely burned, hurt
and shocked by some molten metal which
fell from one of the defendants hot pot
cars September b. 1905. and prays for
damages to the extent OF $4,000
Fannie Thomas Us. the Birmingham
Railway, Light and Power company, for
damages to the extent of $500 for alleged
injuries sustained when plaintiff fell while
attempting to alight from one Of the de-
PENDANTS cars October II. 1906.
George e. Brooks VS.. the Birmingham
Railway Light and Power company.
Plaintiff asks for damages to the extent
of $1,000, alleging that he tried to board
a car at Thomas station January s, but
that the car passed him without stopping,
despite his signals, and that he was COM
pell to wait thirty minutes before he
could board one.
Mrs Mamie f. Page vs.. the Blrming-
ham Railway. Light and Power COM
pany, damages to the extent of 5000.
Plaintiff alleges that she was foreibly
thrown to the ground and painfully in
jured and shocked while attempting to
alight from one of defendants cars near
Ensley October 81, 1905
John T. Wright the Birmingham
Railway, Light and Power company, S10,-
600 as damages for personal injuries al
legged to have been sustained November
2. 1905. The plaintiff alleges he was a
passenger on one of the defendants cars
and that he was severely and painfully
4Hysrsx
| forcibly against him because of sudden
start made by the car.
William Arnte VS.. the Birmingham Rail-
way, Light and Power company The Pc
| titioner alleges that he was passenger
| on one of defendants cars near Pratt
City, and rendered the conductor a s.
bill when asked for his fare The con-
ductor made change, and later demanded
of the plaintiff the return of the money
stating that he had given petitioner more
| change than was due This the petitioner
stated was not the case, but the conduc-
| tor insisted. Damages are asked In the
sum of $4,000. because of the alleged in
| jury and humiliation.
]. C. Alisup VS.. the Birmingham Rail
way, Light and Power company, damages
| I'm the sum of $4,000. Petitioner alleges
| that he attempted to become passenger
on one of defendants cars. but the car
| started suddenly and without warning,
with the result that petitioner was dragg-
ed some distance and painfully and Sc
verely injured.
| Samuel Ware VS. the Birmingham Rail-
way, Light and Power company, damages
| to the extent of 5000 Petitioner alleges
| that on February s. 1905, one of the cars
| of defendant company struck vehicle
| In which plaintiff was riding causing
plaintiff to sustain severe and painful In
| jures.
Thomas NJ Thompson VS.. the Palos
| Coal and Coke company. The plaintiff
| alleges that he was severely and pain
/ fully injured by coal car owned by
| the defendant company, and prays for
| damages to the extent of $4,000.
The following cases are on the docket
of the city court for today:
First dvision-Euclid Cox vs. the Bir-
mingham Railway, Light and Power
| company; Roland e. Stephens VS.. the
| Birmingham Railway, Light and Power
| company; f. r. Penn Tobacco company
| vs.. Vetch-Young Produce company; w.
D. Yearly VS.. Flora e. Trump; Charles
| Brown VS.. the Birmingham Railway.
Light and Power company; Thomas J.
| Wilder VS.. the Birmingham Railway,
| Light and Power company; w. s. Moug-
hon, ct. al, VS.. Thomas Glenn.
Second division-O. l.. Gregory Vinegar
| company VS.. Schooler Vinegar company
| B. Jaffee VS.. julius Jaffee ct al; Phoenix
| Carriage company vs. T. NJ. Hart w. w
| Iamplxin VS.. Electric Loan company; j. A
| Stripping VS. the st. Louis and San Fran
| cisco Railroad company; Powers Little
&c Co. vs. the Southern Railway COM
| pany; M. Chapero VS.. A. S. Cowan; Phil
| lip-Cary Manufacturing company VS.
Southern Construction company; o. l.
| Drake VS.. T.. C. Bondurant ct al.
The following business was transacted
| yesterday in the chaneery court:
MRS. Oida s. Wells ct al. VS.. Ray Wells
ct all, decree rendered confirming the sale
| of certain lands.
John Vary VS.. r. d. Smith, permission
granted respondent to amend his demurrer
| to the original bill and submitted for de.
| cree upon the amended demurrer.
Ida S. Wells VS.. Rhea Wells ct al.
| reference heard by the register to ascer.
tain the fees for the solicitor for com
plainant and for the guardian ad ltum
The solicitor was allowed $500 and The
| guardian $50
d. w. Graybill ct al. VS.. ID. M. Dren
| men ct AL, decree overruling the motor
| to dismiss and sustaining the demurrer or
the thirteenth ground of the demurrer
| complainant being allowed twenty days IL
| which to file an amendment to the bill.
Bessemer Trust and Banking company
! ct al. VS.. Annie c. Hard ct al, decree
| OYer1u1nR the uemlUTef anu aliONfDA
! complainant twenty days in which to an
| sWer.
| Judgment by consent for $50 was rem
| dered In the circuit court yesterday in the
| case of Charles Mcdonald VS.. the Biz
mingham Railway, Light and Power com
| pany.
The case of John Glover vs.. the Bir
| mingham Railway, Light and Power com
| pany is on trial in the circuit court, anC
will doubtless be concluded this morn
| ing.
The following new suits were filed II
the circuit court yesterday:
Walter Askew VS.. the Southern Eek
| press company. The petitioner prays fol-
damages TO the extent of 500 for the fail
ure of defendant to deliver a trunk ano
| It's contents, the same, 1t is alleged, hav.
| ing been placed in defendants care al
| Opelilza to be delivered in Birmingham.
| John l.. Burns vs. the Southern Rail-
way company, for damages to the extent
| of $500 for the alleged non-delivery of a
box of school and religious books and pa
| pers and sheet music.
The following cases are on the docket
| of the circuit court for today:
| William Thompson VS.. the Birmingham
| Railway, Light and Power company; L.
| r. Gist pro ami vs. the Kansas City
| Memphis and Birmingham Railroad COM
! pany; the Farmers and Merchants Ma
! tional bank vs. the r. Hoy Furniture com
| nanV. hoard of trustees of fine IIniyer.