The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-10-09

The regular routine of work was re- sumed in the courts yesterday. Sew eral cases were settled or dismissed in the city court and in the circuit court considerable business was done.
 Circuit Court
 In Judge Colemans division of the circuit court the following Judgments were rendered:
 Board of Trustees of University of Alabama vs. Francis M. Hogg; judg- ment nil dicit for s25O0.
 A. M Brown vs Jim Langston; judgment for property claimed or $40. The suits of Robert Hall agent, vs. Mack Grant; Riley and Silk vs At lantic and Birmingham Railroad com pany. and J. II. Franklin vs.. D. J. Da- wis were dismissed.
 In the case of H. L. Cox vs. E. J. Thornton the plaintiff took non suit The following docket is set for trial in Judge Colemans division of the cir cult court today:
 Mrs. Ida Luster vs. Mrs. Susie Eos ter appeal by defendant; Hoffman & McNeil vs. Isaac, Joseph Iron company,
 
 BowdenA "a ssumpsit Ellie Golsby vs. the Great Southern Home Industrial asso- ciation. appeal by defendant California Fruit ard Cider company vs. A. '. Morris appeal by defendant; Aaron McAfee ys. Henry Jackson, appeal by defendant; David Sails vs. Scott Par ker appeal by defendant; William Hall vs. Jonas Sehwab company, appeal by defendant: Fillmore Sewall vs Barrel & Letaw, appeal by defendant; Ed Pat terson vs. s. J. Brintle Investment com pany. appeal by plaintiff; M. k. Wil- Hams vs. B. W. May, appeal by defenu- ant; Joe Reynolds & Co. vs. Dr. w. Wilson, appeal by defendant; Alabama Penny Savings and Loan company vs. Julia Roebuck, appeal by. defendant; Charles G. Lawrence vs. J. W. Me Queen, assumpsit; T. R. McCarty vs. E. D. Brown, appeal by defendant; Burger Dry Goods company vs. Blauner Bros, attachment; Coaldale Brick company vs Frank E. Fleming, assumpsit; Hoy Jolly Furniture company vs. c. B. Powell ct al, appeal by defendant M. Wise vs Mrs. NJ. E. Wilmot, appeal by defendant.
 In Judge Lanes division of the cir cult court yesterday two juries were out at 12 o'clock.
 Tn the case of Loveman. Joseph X Loeb vs. the Peoples Home Teleph one company the jury failed to reach yer- dict and mistrial was entered.
 A verdict for the defendant vas re- turned in the case of Jefferson county vs. J. D. Harris.
 The case of the Suburban Realty and Investment company ys. Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron company is on trial, and will probably occupy all today.
 The following docket is set for trial fin Judge Lanes division today
 A. B. Vandergrift & Son vs. J. w. flaw kins. assumpsit Henry Lewis vs Br- mingham Railway, Light and Power con- pany, damages; Mrs. John J. Strickland vs. R. B. Kelley, assumpsit; B. M. Allen vs. Nina Care ct al, assumpsit; Maggie Hines vs Ella Mason, damages
 City Court.
 In the first division of the city court yesterday verdict for the defendant was returned in tine case of J. J. Gilmore vs Louis Hart.
 A check for $35O0 was promptly paid to the clerk yesterday by the Union central Life Insurance company in settlement of suit instituted by r. l.. Mcdonnell. The judgment by consent.
 In the case of George w. Harris vs. Frank Leonard judgment by consent for s7l was rendered for plaintiff. In the case of James H. Adams vs. Mat tie Jackson judgment was rendered for the defendant.
 I. c. Adams vs. L. F. Chew, suit abated.
 Y. A. Bradley vs. w. T. Newberry and N T. Henderson vs w. D. Bush. suits dismissed.
 The case of Hannah Shines vs. Birmins- ham Railway Light and Power company is on trial.
 The following docket is set for trial to- day:
 Jennie MacElwell vs. Mims B. Stone, damages: Tiny Hatch vs. Mims B. Stone, damages: Rosa Jemison vs. s. J. Dorse of al. damages; Thorpe & Letson ct al. vs Marshall Howton, assumpsit Folger Folger ct al. vs. W. H. Owings Type writer company ct all. assumpsit; Purity Manufacturing company ct al. vs. J. H. Roll. assumpst B. c. Boez vs. caul Jurber company, assumpsit; Carrie Bradford ct al. vs. Margaret Wilson ct all, eiectment.
 In the second division of the city court the case of Mrs. l.. J. Alexander ys Southern railway was tried and went to the jury at o'clock
 The cases of Jack White vs. Birming- ham Railway. Light and Power company,