The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-05-01
THE EQUITY COURT
JUDGE sAYRE MAKES ORDERS IN
 FORTY CASES.
Taken Ups-Number of Cases Are Set Down For

| Forty cases were before Judge A. D.
 sayre during the first days sessions
 of the City Court in Equity. yesterday,
 when the April term of that court was opened. A number of these were con-
 tinued, while othere were dismissed for various causes.
 Following are the cases which were disposed of during the day: | The case of Mattle c. Elsberry and others against the Montgomery Street | Railway. introduced in court five or
 six vars ago. was continued gener-
 ally.
 Teh death of the complainant was | suggested and admitted in the case of James A. Harweii against the Union | Trust and Savings Company and others. I and leave was granted to revive the | case when the personal representative | of teh deceased shall be appointed. l The suit of Mary Mcdonald against I Milton Mcdonald was ordered dismiss- | ed for want of prosecution, as was that | of March Williams against Mattie Wu- Hams.
 | In the case of Prince Davis V. Patsy Davis, the suit was dismissed on mo. tion of the plaintiff.
 l A general continuanc was taken in the case of the Manhattan Trust Com pany V. J. B. Gaston. judge.
 The case of Lou Martin " Isaac Mar tin. was dismissed by the complainant ] without prejudice.
 want of service on the defendant was the cause of the dismissal of the
 case of Robert IL. Teddy v. Hattie Teddy.
 | In the case of Jerry Palmer V. Annie Palmer the testimony was published. and the cause submitted for decree on the pieadiugs and proof.
 The case of Charlie Brown V. Eliza Brown was dismissed without preiu-
 dice.
 l Want of prosecution resulted in the dismissal of the case of Harrison Ware V. Tsne. Ware. Teh case of Ben Col
 bert v.iAgnes Colbert was dismissed for | the same reason. | Tn the case of Ed Thomas V Bettie | Thomas the testimony was published. and the cause submitted for decree on | the pleadings and proof. l The case of Jeannette Jackson V. An~ ! drew c. Jackson was dismissed on mo- | ton of the complainant, and that of Jasper Lee V. Jane Lee for want Of prosecution.
 The case of Carrie James V. Ben James was dismissed without prejudice while those of Berry Johnson V. Emma Johnson, and Sallie Terry V. Thomas Terry. were dismissed for want of pros- ecution.
 l The registers report of the reference | in the case of Roscoe Mccall vs. Mary | Hall Mccall was read. and the case | ordered to lie over until May 2. Dismissed on motion of the com- | plaiuant was the action taken in the | case of Jake Harris vs. Charity Har- | ris.
 In the case of George Jackson vs. | Susie Jackson, the testimony was pulp | aad ha anhnitfad cree on the pleadings and proof. Simi- lar action was taken in the case of
 Mary Mcdonald vs. Hart Mcdonald. want of service on the defendant re- suited in the dismissal of the next case.
 that of Thomas Henry vs. Martha | Henry.
 A decree pro confesso was given on | personal service in the case of Bettie l Chappell vs. William Chappell. Alias summons was issued in the case | of Queene Watkins vs. Preston Wat kins.
 want of prosecution was the reason for the dismissal of the cases of Mary
 Lou Armstrong ys Tommy Arm | strong and Jacob Fleming vs. Matte
 Lee Fleming.
 | The case of W. J. Parker vs M W. | Stuart was dismissed by the agreement 1 of the parties concerned, and the un- derstanding that the defendant pay the cost in the litigation. In he case of J. M. Kennedy vs. Jas per billiard the decree pro confesso, heretofore taken against Chandler and Douglas, was set aside by agreement, and the hearing of the case set for May {.
 Testimony was published and the causes submitted for the decree on pleadLngs and proof in the eases of Mary Coles vs. Ephraim Coles and f~o .ta DO Rnhin- son.
 The case of Emma Jackson vs. W. C. Jackson was dismissed on plea to jurisdiction, which was admitted.
 In the cases of Lela Bell vs. Willis
 Bell and Susie S. Miller vs. G. H. Miller,
 the testimony was published and the
 causes submitted for decree on plead
 inEs and proof.
 The case of Susie Jackson vs. George Jackson was dismissed on motion of
 plaintiff.
 A decree pro confesso on personal
 service was granted in the case Of Georgia Mclean vs. Will Mclean
 Similar action was taken in the cases
 of c. J. Grey vs. Archie Grey and Will Lewis vs. Della Lewis.
 In the case Of Lucille A. Tallman vs. Richard P. Tallman. a decree pro con- fesso against the defendant was grant ed Thomas A. Tallman, on service by publication. W. A. Gayle was appoint ed guardian for the defendant. a minor, by decree. during litigation.
 Testimony was published and the cause submitted for decree on plead inss and proof. in the case of George Thomas vs. Fannie Thomas.
 Following are the easeb on the dock ct for which date have been set for trial:
 May l---Lucy w. Lahey vs. Montgom- cry Light and Water Power Company; D. R. Dreyfus ct al vs. City Council of Montgomery; Annabelle NJ. Fair vs. Mary T. Noble ct al vs. Maurice Wer- theimer vs Alice H. Hunter ct al; Montgomery Light and Water Power Company vs. Citizens Light. Heat and Power Company; McD. Morgan ct al vs Caroline c. Lumpkin ct al; Mont gomery Light and Water Power Com pany vs. Citizens Light, Heat and Power Company; Ida P. Noble vs Mat tie Campbell Tom MoAllister vs. May McAllister; Gaston G. Scott vs. M C. Stokes ct al; Bessie K Massie, as ex- ecutrix, vs. Jane Massie ct al; Lucy B Geddes vs. E. B. Kirk, ct al; Florence E, Peebles vs. Sarah E. Noble ct al;
 William Wilkerson vs, Josiah NJ Will
 kerson; Henrietta L. Roquemore vs
 c. H. Roquemore ct al; Robert Nixon vs. Clear Creek Lumber Company; Bar ry L. Holt vs. Montgomery Traction Company: A. T. Hughes vs Y. Ma rion Letcher ct al; Julia Hicks vs. Abthony Biars; Earle Willie Claire vs. Pearl Claire; Working Woman's Home Association vs. R. May Griffin ct al: Mary Russell vs James H. Russell;