The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-11-14
RECORD OF THE COURTS

llillSfldn l am glad or
 RECORD OF THE COURTS Owing to the continued Illness of Judge A. A. Coleman causing his ab- sence from court, Governor Conner ap- | pointed Judge John II. Miller to pre- | side in the circuit court. Judge Miller | took his seat on the bench yesterday
 morning at 10 o'clock and immediately | proceeded with business. i Judge Ray presided in Judge Lanes l division of the circuit court, and all ] divisions of the city court were in ses- 1 sion all day.
 Circuit Court. In the circuit court yesterday before I Judge John II. Miller the following | cases were dismissed for want of prose- cution; J. R. Adams vs. J. L. Lock- wood w. c. Jordan vs. Tom Rens- ford and Brothers. w. II. Perrin ys. I Birmingham Railway Light and Power company.
 In the case of R. II. Hubbard vs. | Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham a verdict was returned for the defend ant.
 The case of Mrs. S. E. Cox, adminis- tratrix, vs. Birmingham Railway, Light | and Power company is on trial. The following docket is set for trial | before Judge Miller today: Steiner Brothers vs. w. E. Leadford. ejectment; The Peck Hammond com pany vs. Town of East Lake ct al., as- sumpsit; A. c. Stevenson vs. West Pratt Coal company. assumpsit; R. II. Thom- as vs. M. N. Due ct all, assumpsit; R. l.. Leatherwood vs. J. W. Hubbard ct 1 al, assumpsit.
 In the circuit court yesterday before Judge Ray the case of John G. Wash ington, administrator, vs. Woodward Iron company was concluded and re- suited in a verdict for the defendant. The case of Antonio Ardugno vs. T c. Thompson is on trial in the same court.
 The following docket is set for today before Judge Ray in the circuit court Mrs. Addie Hinton vs. Louisville and Nashville Railroad company, damages; R. L. Allen vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad company, damages; Charles M. Bunnell vs. Fies & Sons, damages; S. M. Hanby vs. Southern Railway company, damages.
 City Court. In the first division of the city court yestrday the case of E. D. Schran vs. w. T. Terry ct all was on trial and went to the jury at adjournment time.
 A consent judgment for S227 S9 was rendered in the case of Wimberley & Thomas Hardware company vs. George B. Bates.
 The following docket is set in the first division of the city court today: Chamberlin. Johnson & Dubose company vs. Arthur R. Moody ,assumpslt; R. l.. Leatherwood vs. Ida V. Mitchell, assump- sit; T. V. Boardman vs. Anna l.. Powell, certiorari by defendant; Frank E. Cruse vs. Kennedy Slave and Cooperage com pany, damages: Margaret N. Parks pro ami vs. Lizzie Brammer ct al., ejectment; Friedman Bros Shoe company vs. Rex Shoe company, assumpsit; B. Frank Toe vs. John McCarty, appeal by defendant; Louis Saks vs. J. w. Young, assumpsit. In the second division of the city court the case of W. J. Randle, administrator, ys. Birmingham Railway, Light and Pow CT company was on trial and had not concluded when court adjourned. / The following docket is set in the sec , ond division today:
  vs. Atlanta and Birmingham Air Line railway, damages Henry M. Jones vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company, damages; Robert Cattrell vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company, damages; L. F. Logan, admin istrator, vs. Central of Georgia Railway company, damages.
 In the third division of the city court a verdict for $500 was found for the plain tiff in the case of Mrs. Mamie Frederick vs. Birmingham Railway. Light and Pow CT company
 In the same court the case of London Canada was on trial all day and had not finished when court adjourned.
 The following docket is set in the third division of the city court today:
 M. R. Mcenzie vs. Birmingham Railway, Light and Power company. damages; Ida Gaines vs. Birmingham Railway Light and Power company, damages; Mrs. W. H. Holland vs. Western Union Telegraph company, damages; J. M. Meighan vs. Birmingham Terminal company, damages.
 Chancery Court.
 In the chancery court yesterday the fol- lowing cases were dismissed for want Of prosecution: Jennie Echols vs. James Echols; J. H. Arberry vs. Clara Arberry; Etoile Leg vs. Harry Leg
 In the case of Mary Reed vs. Tennes- see Coal, Iron and ftaliroau conpdhy d decree was rendered everything demurrer.
 A decree correcting a former decree was rendered in the case of Woodlawn. mu- nicipal corporation. vs. J. D. Durham.
 The following docket is set in the chan cery court today:
 R, E. Collins vs. H. A. McNutt ct al; Lizzie Wise vs Walter Wise; May Blood- worth vs George Bloodworth; F.. w. Fucker vs. w. c. Shackelford ct al; Fe- lecia Tedeseki vs. Genie Gilbert ct al.; W. W. Montgomery pro ami vs. Wood- lawn, a municipal corporation; Felicia Tedeseki ys Lottie Hill ct al; Rudulph ,,t.la..l .4 al ,rs Stainar Rrns