Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1906-03-17
COURT WORK
VERY HEAVY
Lewiston District Will
Soon Need Another
Judge

There have been Is new cases put on
the docket in the district court since
the term opened last Monday and a
dozen more will probably be added be-
fore the term Is closed. This Is a fair
illustration Of the way the business is
growing In this district.
1T has been only about so days since
the last term closed here" said Judge
Steele today, land the docket was
practically cleared when we closed the
term. Now there are more than
hundred cases. The business in this
district will soon be beyond the ability
of one Judge to handle.
Must Divide District.
Lewiston is fast growing into city
and its business should be handled with
dispatch or it will get beyond the ca
pacity Of the courts to get out from
under the load. Relief must come soon
and I suppose 1t will have to come in
the way of a divided district. but
hardly see how this district can be d.
vided, for II Latah and Nez Perez were
coupled together Idaho could not be
united to any of the southern districts.
and II Nee Perez and Idaho were Joined
it would be impracticable for Latah to
be united with the first district. The
problem Of relief Is hard to solve"
Many Cases Disposed Of.
The matter Of preliminary motions
occupied the attention of the court this
morning and many cases were disposed
of and set for hearing or dismissed or
the issue determined. The docket Is
now cleared for the hearing of cases
on the merits and the criminal cases
will be first on the docket next week.
Following is a detailed statement OF
the business done up till the time of
the noon recess today:
S. w. Daily VS.. Lewiston Foundry
and Machine Works: demurrer to COM
plant argued and submitted and over
ruled.
Bell VS.. Bell, on motion of J. F. Wall.
Fogg & Tannahill were entered as as
sociate counsel for plaintiff; demurrer
to complaint argued and overruled and
defendants given to March 81 to an
swer.
| Myers vs. Boozer; on motion Of
plaintiff the defendant not objecting,
the temporary injunction was dis
solved and the cause dismissed.
Burke vs. Burke; on motion plaintiff
the cause was dismissed.
John Driessel vs.. Lewiston Lumber
& Box Co.; cause dismissed without
prejudice.
Ida M. Putnam VS.. Carl F. Putnam;
on motion of plaintiff default was or
dered.
| Lewiston Lumber q Box Co. W..
Frank Carver ct al; demurrer over
ruled and March "a set for answer.
Mary A. Baird VI. City Of Lewiston;
no amended complaint having been
filed the cause was dismissed.
Eureka Mining Co. W.. Gardner Elec-
trio Drill Co.; on motion Of defendant
this cause was dismissed as per stipu-
lation on file.
Albert q. wisner ct al W.. William
Sipple ct al: dismissed as to several
defendants who had not been served
and set for trial March 20. at . q. m.
| w. p. Hunt ct al Va. Phil Dryer ct
al; same a. above.
H. B. Mcknight Va. Schuyler Grant
trustee; default OF defendant entered;
documentary evidence introduced; de-
cree granted as prayed for.
In re estate Of Louis Fuller; set for
(hearing March ~, 10 a. m.
w. H. Maynard vs.. L. e. Stevens:
demurrer to complaint In Intervention
argued and submitted.
Simmons VI. Thiessen; motion te
dismiss appeal argued and submitted
Martha Allen W. Homer Allen: de-
lcree OF divorce entered.