Amador ledger., 1906-07-13
SUPERIOR COURT.
HON. R. C. RUST. JUDGE.

HON. R. c. RUST. JUDGE
G. b. Vicini VS.. Annie Allen
Defendants demurrer was argued and
submitted to the court for its decls-
ion.
o. e. Martin vs.. Amador Lumber
Company Trial continued until July
IT,.
L. A. Chichlzola VS.. o. E. Martin.
Trial continued until July 16.
Estate of G. W. Trotter. Hearing
on final account continued.
Estate of Gideon Devore. Hearing
on citation to show cause continued
until July IA.
Estate of Antoine Buvonich. Hear
ing OF return of sale of real estate to
A. Buvonich, set for July 81.
Estate of James Kittridge. g. M.
Huberty petitions for letters. Set
for hearing July 81.
Estate of James Kittridge. C. M.
Huberty petitions for letters of ad-
ministration. Estate consists of 80
acres of land about three miles south
west of jackson, and personal pro-
perty. Total value estimated at S41O.
There are no relatives IN this state
so far as known, but deceased has
sister in Michigan. July q set for
hearing.
Estate of l. N. Frlsbee. Hearing
of petition for letters continued until
July IA.
Estate of E. l.. Rugne Hearing of
petition for letters continued until
July IA.
New Gases.
W. Jarman and wife VS.. W. Ii.
Steffier, executor of estate of Mary A.
Hall, deceased. The complaint sets
out that within two years past, Mary
A. Hall became indebted to plaintiffs
in the sum of S165 for money advanc-
ed and expended by them on her
account. Defendant died April, 1905;
that the claim for 500 on account of
such claim was presented to the
executor and by him rejected. For a
further cause complaint alleges that
Mary A. Hall, was at the time of her
death indebted to plaintiffs in the
sum of S46O, for work and labor in
nursing, caring for, and sewing done
by plaintiffs for her. On Febru-
airy %, 1906, they presented said
clsim to the executor, which was re-
jected. For further cause Mary A.
Hall was indebted to plaintiff for
board and lodging in the sum of $3.50,
which claim was also rejected. Suit
Is therefore brought to recover the
several amounts, and costs of suit.
Kain and Whitehurst are attorneys
for plaintiffs.
Fred Raab, owner of the Sutter
Creek livery stable, has commenced
an Injunction suit against the board
of supervisors, and Giovanni Levaggi
and M. Levaggi, to enjoin them from
the construction of the new bridge
over Sutter creek, in such manner
as to interfere with plaintiffs pro-
perty. The complaint alleges that
plaintiff is the owner of the lot ad-
jacent to said bridge; that the super,
~isors agreed to place the masonry
abutment of said bridge six feet
north and parallel with the old wall
along the south side of Sutter creek,
so as not to interfere with the free
use of plaintiffs pI operty and livery
stable; instead thereof they propose
to construct the wall at less distance
than six feet north of the old wall,
which would cut off access to and
from the livery stable. A temporary
injunction was issued, and the matter
of whether the same should be made
permanent came up for hearing in
the superior court last Monday. At
the time appointed, however, 1T was
stated that the differences had been
amicably settled out of court, ..and
the proceedings were thereupon dis
missed.