The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-11-08
RECORD OF THE COURTS.

After the storm comes a calm is the |
 old proverb verified in the court house
 yesterday As if notsing had happened
 the day before, the courts resumed busi-
 ness yesterday morning and the old grind of the wheels of law went on as usual l
 In tho circuit court the case of E. A |
 1Snnett vs Birmingham Railway Light
 and Power company was passed to today
 on account of the illness of Hugh Nor
 row, attorney for the defendant.
 In the circuit court yesterday the case of D. F. Allen vs. Frank E. Davidson
 was on trial and had not concluded when the court adjourned. Circuit Court.
 In the case of T. r. Youngblood vs. Alabama Brewing company judgment by consent was rendered for the plaintiff
 in the sum of $175.
 Circuit Court Docket. The following docket is set for trial in the circuit court today:
 Clarence Denegree vs. S. Jenkins and
 Tom Levert. damages James Weatherly, trustee, vs. A. Marx, attachment; Jake
 Rich vs. Esther Black, damages; Bir-
 mingham Paint and Glass company vs l Lena Snedecor, assumsit; Harriett Cleve-
 land vs. St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad company damages.
 City Court.
 | In the first division of the city court yesterday the jury In the case of Will Taylor pro ami, vs. Pioneer Mining and Manufacturing company returned a yer dict for the plaintiff for $6OO The case of Freedman Brothers Shoe | con'r; ny vs. Rex Shoe company was dis
 missed for want of prosecution.
 Kennedy and Markstein vs Wilson R.
 Brown, dismissed for want of prosecu- ton. s. P. Peoples vs. Westel Iniou Tele- . graph company, dismissed 4v4 want of prosecution. ' R. Knauff & Co. vs. Jennie E. Tarrey, |
 dismissed for want of prosecution.
 J. O.. Collins vs. J. w. Fleming, dis |
 missed for want of prosecution. W. s. Carmack vs St. Louis and San |
 Francisco Railroad company, settled and dismissed on motion of plaintiff. First Division Docket.
 The following docket is set for trial in | the first division of the city court to-
 day: l Mrs. G. A. White vs. Tennessee Coal |
 Iron and Railroad company, damages l
 A. J. Krebs company vs. J. Marx ct al. | ] assumpsit; NJ. W. Burns vs. Republic |
 Iron and Steel company, damages; M. l W. Burns vs. Tutwiler Coal, Coke and | Iron company damages; Bloom Brothers |
 X Co., vs. L. Copeland, assumpsit; Br- |
 mingham Sand, Lime Brick and Stone l
 Manufacturing company vs. Thomas and |
 Gallegan, garnishment. ] Second Division City Court.
 In the second division of the city court | yesterday, Judge Senn dismissed the fol- | lowing cases for want of prosecutions: Lecroy Loan and Investment company | vs. Will Brown; Lige Loy vs. Pope B. 1
 Smith; Buckeye Buggy company vs. Ala |
 bama Livery company; The Talking Ma
 chine company vs, Joe Bryan; Carolina
 Portland Cement company vs. D. A.
 Reamer: J. F. Thomas vs. NJ r. Wood. In tho case of W. NJ. Conner vs. B. L. l
 Atkins, judgment was rendered for the
 plaintiff by default, with leave to prove damages. In the case of Andrew Colias vs. George | Nichols, judgement was rendered for | lnt pldiiltiil III lic Suill Ol Slao D. F. Constantine ct al. vs. G. Morrettl, | judgment for plaintiff for sS9 J. Mark vs. John T. Chatman judg. l ment for plaintiff for s17.44. Lee, Lee & Lee vs. Leila Adams. judg- l
 ment for plaintiff for se7. w. H. Hubbard vs. Kansas City, Mem- | phis and Birmingham Railroad company, | plaintiff took a non-suit. c. c. Bass vs. Birmingh Railroad, |
 Light and Power company. judgment for |
 plaintiff by agreement for $25
 Alabama State Land company vs. Tom | Vines vs. w. M. Glaze and vs. Tom Glov- | er judgment for the land sued for in | | each case.
 Second Dvlslon-Chancery
 Judge sem will take up the chancery |
 docket in the second division of the city |
 court today at 9:3O o'clock. Chancery Court. In the chancery court yesterday the | l cases of David Arlington vs. Birdie Ar | rington and Adellne Sanders vs. Houston | | Sanders were dismissed for want of pros- l 1 ecution, the complainants to pay costs in l each case. | In the case of q. B. Mccormick vs. Eu- gene s. Miller, the chancellor rendered | , a decree confirming the sale of certain | ] real estate by the register. | In the case of Louis A. Roy vs. Mrs |
 Cecilia N Roy. individually and as ad- l mnistratrix. the demurrer to bin of com. | 1 plaint as amended was sustained. and | plaintiff granted twenty days to amend | his amended hill. The following new suits were filed: W. l W. Montgomery vs. town of Woodlawn: ! plaintiff alleges that the respondent took ! l certain property of his and graded same |
 as streets. and that said property is | worth s150o. Plaintiff prays that defendant | he enjoned from using said streets and | that court ascertain the amount of his 1 damage.
 Felicia Tedeski filed n hill arainst C,enie