The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1907-01-12

RECORD OF THE COURTS

The weeks business in the courts prac-
tically concluded yesterday. The dockets
were finished and jurles discharged from
service.
Circuit Court
In the circuit court yesterday the jury
returned verdict for the defendant in
the case of Handy Harris VS.. Alabama
Great Southern Railroad company.
Claude Brewer. administrator VS.. Wood
ward Iron and Steel company; judgment
for plaintiff by consent for s12o.
Barney Richardson, pro ami, VS.. Louis
vile and Nashville Railroad company;
judgment for plaintiff by consent for
500.
julie J.. Oden ct al VS.. Birmingham
Railway Light and Power company; trial
and verdict for plaintiff for $500.
Adolphus Busch Glass Manufacturing
company VS.. ]. C. Mayfied Manufacturing
company; judgment for plaintiff for
$34S "a.
New Suits.
The following suits were filed in the
office of the circuit court yesterday:
Demps Coleman VS. Sloss-Sheffield Steel
and Iron company. Plaintiff claims $4,000
damages for personal injuries alleged to
have been caused by an explosion of gas
or dust in defendants mines.
Collins & Co. VS.. ]. E. Hamilton Plain
tiff sues for s164. 81 alleged to be due on
promissory note.
City Court.
In the first division of the city court
yeshrdsv TN jury found verdict for
the plaintiff in. the case of John Doe, ex.
dem. Rena Ellard VS.. J.. J. Schultz.
A. A. McClanahan, administrator, VS..
Southern Railway company; consent judg-
ment for the plaintiff for $780,
George Tribble VS.. w. ]. Ryan, admin
istrator; dismissed for want of prosecu-
ticn.
]. w. Horton VS.. The Mey Trading COM
pany; dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Thomas w Self, pro ami VS.. Southern
Railway company; consent Judgment for
plaintiff for $50.
Maj. e. Self VS.. Southern Railway COM
pany; judgment by consent for plaintiff
for $3.50.
Luella Lane VS.. Birmingham Railway,
Light and Power company; judgment for
plaintiff by consent for $500.
]. j. Sykes VS.. T. w. Walker ct al: YER
In the second division of the city court
yesterday several chancery cases were
argued and taken under advisement.
New Suits.
The following suits were filed in the
city court yesterday;
Lee johnson VS.. st. Louis and San Fran
cisco Railroad company. Plaintiff claims
$1,000 damages. and alleged that he was
put off defendants train at wrong sta
.,l.I 20 IL cfaa
to his destination.
Mrs. A. |. Ayers VS.. Western Union
Telegraph company Plaintiff claims $l5OC
damages for alleged failure of the re-
spondent to deliver a telegram within a
reasonable time
Chancery Court.
In the chaneery court yesterday the fol-
lowing bills were filed:
Annie Chandler VS.. John Martin ct al.
bill to quiet title to certain real estate
Sc Birmingham.
John Remlinger VS.. Brewer & Jones
partnership. The complainant alleges
that he owns so suits of bed room furni-
ture together with as many toilet sets
carpets mating, bed clothes and bed
linen; that he borrowed the sum of s25C
from the respondent and executed mort
gage upon the aforesaid property: that
the mortgage shows a face Indebtedness
OF $500, and that the respondent has ad-
vertised the sale of said property, al
though complainant has rendered the sum
of $3.50 in payment of the debt. The COM
plainant prays that respondent be re-
strained and said sale prevented
Chancery Court Docket
The following docket is set for hearing
in the chancery court today:
B. r. Eborn VS. J. e. Anderson; Peter
Williams VS.. e. II. Moncrief; Eli Robert
son VS.. S. J. Brintle; Rudolph Richard vs.
Steiner Bros; Florence Arvin ct al. vs.
Robinson Mining and Manufacturing COM
pany; w. IT. Kendrick VS.. Alabama Con-
solidated Coal and Iron company; E. w.
Rucker VS.. w. c. Shackleford; William
McAdory VS.. Worthy McAdory; Felicia
Tedescki VS.. Edith Merrill ct al