The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-11-06

Railway, Light and Power company, dam- ages; Charles H. Denson vs. Birming- ham Railway, Light and Power com pany, damages.
 City Court.
 In the first division of the City court yesterday in the case of B. F. Eborn vs. J. B. Darse, verdict for $45 was returned for the plaintiff.
 judgment for $257. D was rendered III the case of the Commercial Printing corl- -pany vs. Independent Order of Beavers.
 Wimberly & Thomas Hardware com pany vs. W. E. Bowen, judgment for s17636.
 Alabama Grocery company vs. J. l. Knight, judgment for Sl40.9O.
 The following cases were dismissed:
 A. L. Kronenberg vs. Jerry Ramsey; R. Randolph ct als. vs. Alabama Consoli- dated Coal and Iron company; Bragan Bros. ct al. vs. Herman Saks ct al
 The following docket is set in the first division today:
 J. c. Mayheld Manufacturing company vs. Alabama National bank, assumpsit; the Pettyjohn company vs. k. l.. Cooper, assumpsit; Allen & Johnson vs. Birming- ham Ore Mining company, certiorari; La throp Lumber company vs. Henry F.. Pool, garnishment on summons; Billie Jarrett vs J. w. Lindsay appeal by de- fendant; Ivy Leaf and Piper Coal com pany vs j. V Johnson. appeal by defen- dant A. c. Foster vs. Von L. Thompson, certiorari.
 In the second division of the city court the case of Connata Scpio vs. Pioneer Mining and Manufacturing company re- suited in q verdict for the defendant
 In the case of J. H. Rash vs. Southern Railway company d consent judgment for $50 was rendered for the plaintiff
 The case of F. T. Norris vs. Birmins- ham Belt Railroad company is on trial. The following docket is set in the sec ond division of the city court today;
 Maggie Brown, administrative, vs Ala bama Steel and Wire company, damages; Maggie Brown, vs. Southern Steel com pany, damages; E. E. Hydenger Vs. Bir- mingham Railway, Light and Power conl- pany damages; Katie Eggler Vs. Bir- mingham Belt Railroad company, dam ages; II. N. Green ys. Birmingham Rail way, Light and Power company, dam afes; Emma Hall vs Southern Steel com pany, damages. In the third division of the city court yesterday the case of Fred Anderson, pro ami vs. Birmingham Railway. Light and Power company was concluded as court adjourned and went to the jury
 The following docket is set in the third division of the city court today:
 William M. MulHn NS. 6lrlnlHS iidIi Railway, Light and Power company, dam ages; R. H. Ray vs Birmingham Rail way Light and Power company, dam afes; L. J. Harper vs. Louisville and Nashville Railroad company, damages T. H. Milsaps vs. Western Union Telegraph company, damages; w. E. Walker vs. St. Louis and San F'rancsico railroad com pany, damages; Mrs. E. l.. Smith, ad- ministratrix, etc, vs. Birmingham South ern Railroad company, damages.
 The following docket is set in the equity division of the city court today: c. B. Sullivan, trustee, vs. Central Land company; Katie Moore vs John Will Hams, ct al. I. A. A. Crawford vs. James J. Garrett. ct al; Julia Plecker vs. J. S. Plecker; W. D. Stillwell vs. Liz zie Stillwell.
 chancery Court.
 In the chancery court yesterday the cases of Pink Scarborough vs. Jennie Scarborough; James Smith vs Minnie Smith, and Hattie Trimble vs. Bailey Trimble, were dismissed.
 In the case of J. H. c. Wallis vs. Mrs E. Brophy, guardian, decree was rendered sustaining demurrer and allow ing plaintiff 20 days to amend.
 The following docket Is set in the chan cery court today:
 Charles M Ellis vs. Ida Ellis; B. M. Meigs, ct al. vs. N. J. Davis, agent, GU
 O 1 HH