The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-06-11
RECORD OF THE COURTS.

Juries were quickly organized in the circuit and city courts yesterday, but the usual difficulty was found to secure jurors for the first division of the criminal court. Attachments were issued for quite a number of jurors who failed to answer when called, and unless good excuses are given heavy fines will be imposed
 Circuit Court.
 In Judge Coleman's division of the cir cult court the case of Mrs. Marion Brock, administratrix, vs. Desmond & Co.,, dam ages, is on trial
 In Judge Lanes division of the circuit court the case of F. M. Davis vs. West ern Union Telegraph company resulted in verdict for the defendant. On the pre- vious trial of this case a verdict for $l500 was returned for the plaintiff, which was reversed on appeal
 City Court.
 In the first division of the city court yesterday none of the cases set on the days docket could be tried on account of attorneys being engaged in other courts
 In the second division of the city court the case of P. z. Alexander vs. Atlanta and Birmingham Air Line Railway com pany Is on trial.
 Henrietta Williams vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company. ds- missed.
 R. l.. Dix vs. c. S. Temerson. dis missed
 Ella Price vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company, verdict for plaintiff by agreement for s175.
 In the third division of the city court the case of Sam Young vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company is on trial.
 judgment for $s1 S9 was rendered in the case of the Birmingham Buggy com pany vs. Charles Gachet.
 Birmingham Paint and Glass company vs J. F. Gillespie, detinue, verdict for the plaintiff.
 Stowers Furniture company vs. F. c. Tanksley, certiorari, judgment for siS 36. w. O. Strauss vs. A. A. Gambill, trover, judgment for plaintiff.
 In the equity division of the city court the cases of Susie Griswold vs. Tom Gris- wold. Minnie Gafford ys. T. H. Benners, and ex parte A. H. Byrd, were dismissed. The case of the state of Alabama ex rel T. M. Bradley vs. Elyton came up on demurrer to the bill filed in the quo warranto proceedings. After considerable argument the demurrer was withdrawn and an answer was filed in which it is al- legged that the matter Is res adjudica ta inasmuch as a bill of the same nature and having the same purpose was filed in the circuit court about a month ago and that Judge Coleman dismissed the bill. It is further alleged In the answer that the original charter of Elyton was cancelled and annulled several years ago. The case will come up for further argument to- morrow morning at 9:80
 Criminal Court.
 It was nearly O clock yesterday after noon when the organization of the three juries to serve in the first division of the criminal court during the week was com pleted.
 The case of Frank Blssett charged with the murder of Mrs. Maggie Patterson was called and several witnesses failed to an swer. The case was passed until this morning to allow showings to be made for the absent witnesses.
 chancery Court.
 In the chancery court yesterday de- cree was rendered reducing by $l000 the registers report recommending S5000 as reasonable attorneys fee for the plain tiff's attorneys in the case of W. H. Mac Afee, assignee, Ys. The MacAfee com- pany, which was tried in the circuit court recently.
 George F. Harrison vs. Henton F. Carr, submitted for final decree.
 H. Howard Wiles filed bill in chan cery yesterday against John Higgins in which he alleges that the defendant built a wall across stream thereby causing the water to overflow plaintiffs land, which has been damaged to the extent of s200.
 w. R. White has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to recover the possession of his two children, William E. and Ethel White, at present in the cus- tody of the matron of the Mercy Home. These are the same children which Mrs. Magness is seeking to recover on a writ of habeas corpus before Judge Weaver. Tho proceedings promise to develop some very sensational features.
 Circuit Court Dockets.
 The following docket is set in Judge Lanes division of the circuit court today: Ella Goodwin vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company, damages; J. M. Terry vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company, damages; G. W. Hopson & Son vs. Southern Railway ~Ananalay- dsinaaAAs ChaxlsS A KAllx yA