The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-01-14

tried are the following cases set for Mon- day:
 Will Turner, murder; Lizzie Bowen, alias Bowers, murder; Jim Walker ST., and Jim Walker, Jr., murder; John Raper, two indictments for robbery. and James Raper. robbery.
 The following cases are set for trial Monday in the second division of the criminal court:
 Estelle Harvey, assault and battery with a weapon; Rosa Jackson, assault and battery; VIII Jackson, assault and battery; Alice Williams, assault and bat tery; Charles W. Cox, petit larceny; Jor- dan billiard, abusive language; Ruby Ramsey, abusive language; Metro Smen, abusive language; Mortimer w. Staton, pointing a pistol; N. A. Staton, assault with a weapon; Mortimer w. Staton, abu sive language; Miss Ida Holbrook, abusive language; Charles Holbrook, abusive language.
 Attorneys J. R. Montgomery and M. L.. Ward. representing the Alabama Lumber company, yesterday filed a motion for a
  that company. The verdict in the case had been rendered in favor of the plain tiff for S42O. .S5, and in their motion the movers alleged that one of the jurors, giving his name, was intoxicated when the verdict was rendered, and was unable to properly care for the interests of both parties in the suit.
 The court took up the matter at once. The juror in question was questioned by the court and testified that on the day mentioned he had taken two drinks be- cause of a heavy cold, but he was not drunk. Two other members of the jury, c. II. Estes and Lewis Minor. testified that the juror was intoxicated at the time the verdict was reached. Judge Coleman took the matter under advisement and will probably hand down a decision Mon day.
 A non-suit was taken by the plaintiff in the case of W. 0. Lanning vs. the Industrial Finance and, Trust company in the circuit court yesterday.
 A transcript in the case of Solomon Mines vs. the Empire Flow company was completed in the circuit court yesterday.
 
 ted States circuit court.
 Judge Ferguson in the city court over ruled motions for new trials in the cases of Mrs. Molly Wright vs. the Birmingham Railway. Light and Power company and of A. J. Wheeler vs. the Tutwiler Coal, Coke and Iron company.
 A judgment by agreement was reached in the case of Jerry Wright vs the At lanta and Birmingham Air Line railroad. , in favor of the plaintiff.
 The following new suits were filed In the city court yesterday:
 Mrs. NJ E. Hawkins vs. the Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company. for sl5OO0 for damages alleged to have been sustained by being thrown to the floor of a car of defendant company Novem- Der F, 1905.
 l J. J. B. McElreth vs. F. E. Bostice. damages for 5000 for injuries alleged to have been received because of a pile of stone and earth left by defendant in First alley, between Nineteenth and Twen- tieth streets. I William M. Mullen vs the Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company, for si0,0 damages, the petitioner alleging that he was employed as a motorman by the defendant company and was Injured while at work, freight train having struck his car
 Charles T. Lehman vs. W. B. Copeland, for $60 on notes.
 1 Frederick Moesser & Co. vs. J. Black X Sons, for s69Sl. alleged to be due on account of contract.
 The following cases are on docket of i the city court for Monday: | First Division-Amos Horton vs. the 1 Western Union Telegraph company; Carry Bradford ct al vs. Margaret Wilson ct al; r. II. Jenkins vs. the Sloss- Sheffield Steel and Iron company; B. B. Conner vs. James Ford ct al; William Dawson vs. Birmingham Railway. Light and Power company; John R. Montgomery vs. the Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company; H. B. Journalman vs. l.. A. May & Co. ct al; W. E Jordan vs. Tom Rensford & Bro, ct al w. T. Chapman vs the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Rail road company; D. J. DeVenyns vs. the Sloss-S Sheffield Steel and Iron company. ], Second Division-Alonzo K. Arnold vs. the Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron com pany; E. l.. Hayes vs. the Birmingham 1 Railway, Light and Power company; John J. Gilmore vs. Louis Hart; Caldwell Wat l, son Foundry and Machine company vs. h. G. Stewart. administrator; William B. l Ansley ys. the Birmingham Railway. Light and Power company; John Riley vs. l the Tutwller Coal. Coke and Iron conn pany; F. V Franklin pro ami vs. Bir- mingham Railway, Light and Power com pany; Frank J. Barheld vs. the United I States Fidelity and Guarantee company; Carl Luster pro ami vs. the Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company; E.. D. Scl bm vs. w. T. Terry; Birmingham Paint and Glass company vs. John &. 1 Kennedy ct al
 The following cases arc on the docket of the circuit court for Monday: l w. R. Hicks vs. the Southern Railway company: William Williams vs the South