East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1909-10-30

The supreme court Of the state Of
Oregon will meet at the court house,
Monday morning, November /, for the
regular November term Of court for
eastern Oregon. There are "a cases
on the docket as reported by Major
Lee Moorhouse, deputy clerk Of the
court, and it is expected that all OF
these will be disposed of with ease
during the week
There are only q few Umatilla
county cases to be heard at this term
OF courtthough more than from any
other one county in the state. The
most important are those Of Desire
st. Dennis versus Reinhold Harras,
and the Umailla Water Users asso-
ciatlon versus II. r. Irwin ct al. The
first Of these is the suit for posses
sion Of the well-known st. Dennis
reservation farm, which Harras al
leges he had leased, while the other
is the end Of the fight between the
two factions of the Water Users asso-
citation.
The following is the complete dock
ct as reported by CLERK Moorhouse:
No. tS1S Grant county-Napol-
con Neal, respondent, Hicks & Marks,
versus Milos Roach, appellant, V. G.
Cozad
No. 2 1850 Baker county-The
Portland Trading Co, a corporation,
respondent Snow & McCammant,
White & Chinook, versus Frank E.
Pearce, appellant, John L. Rand.
No. 1858 Union county-Hewitt
Bros, respondent, Olmsted & Strayer,
Ivanhoe & Hodgen, versus Geo L.
Huffman, appellant, c. H. Finn, B.
F. Wilson.
No. (37O) Umatilla county
Sharon & Eddings, respondents, Car
ter e Smythe versus 7, d. Taylor, ap-
pellam Peter West.
No. C372) Grant county-C. G.
Guernsey, respondent, V. C. Cozad,
versus j. Z. Marks and Mary l.
Marks, appellants. Errett Hicks.
No. (373) Morrow county-H. E.
Burchell and Z. d. Burchell, re-
spondents, c E. Woodson, versus The
A. H. Ayerill Machinery Co, appel
Iants Starks & Pepper.
No. I (374 Grant county-State
o.; Oregon, respondent A. NJ. Craw-
ford, a. G., J. w. McCunock. D. A,
versus Ben Hinton, appellant, Leedy
&, Peterson.
No. s (375) Baker county-Thos.
Whited ct al, respondents, Hart &
Nichols versus Geo. Fleetwood ct al.
appellants, John L. Rand and SAM
uel White
No. 9 (376) Wheeler county-A. f.
Stewart and l. NJ. Stewart, respond
ents. H. II. Hendricks, J. Bowerman,
versus Frank NJ. Templeton, appel
liant, Leedy & Peterson.
No. 10 (S7O Wheeler county
case No ?. Two cases same title to
be tried as one.
No. II (37S) Umatilla county
Robert Jameson, respondent, Nc
Court & Phelps, versus John Potts.
Will NJ. Peterson.
No. u (S79) Umatilla county-A
A. Hawks. respondent, Winter & Low |
ell, versus a. W. Slusher, appellant, !
Raley & Raley
No. 13 (3SO) Baker county-State |
Of oregon, respondent, A. NJ. Craw-
ford, A. G., w. 5. Levens, d. A, YER
sus Ira Brinkley, appellant, NJ. D.
Clifford, Olmsted & Strayer.
No. IA (SSD Wallowa county
state of Oregon, respondent, A. NJ.
Crawford, A. G., +. S. Ivanhoe, D. A,
versus AL Emmons, appellant Bur-
eigh & Boyd
No Is (SS2) Union county-Bank
IF Commerce Ltd, a corporation, ap-
Dellant, John L. Rand, Cavanaugh e
Baker, versus Chas. Bertram, re-
'pondent, Turner oliver.
No. 16 (3SS) Grant county-M.
appellant Cattanach &
Wood, versus Copperopolis Copper
20, ct al, respondents, John L. Rand,
.eedy & Patterson, Butler & Poland.
No. II (3S4) Baker county-State
# Oregon, respondent, A. NJ. Craw-
ord, A. G.. w. S. Levens, d. A., YER
us H. Franks, appellant, Samuel
White, O. b Mount.
No. is (SS5) Baker county-State of
oregon. respondent, A. NJ. Crawford.
\. G., w. S. Levens, D. A, versus d.
R. Trapp, appellant, John L. Rand,
:, F. Hyde.
No. 10 1850 Harney county-R. r.
itz, appellant, Bigs & Blggs, versus
|. s. Swain, respondent, Parish &
aembold.
No. 20 (3S7O Umatilla county
)esire st. Dennis, appellant, Lowell
! Winter, versus lIenhold Harras,
espondent D. w Bailey, j B. Per-
y.
No. 81 (SSSO Wallowa cOunty-N.
:. Longfellow. appellant d. W. Shea {
an, versus Huffman & Son, respond
nts. Ivanhoe & Hodgin. T. II, Craw-
)rd.
No. % (3S9) Baker county-John
haw, respondent, Lomax & Ander-
on. versus T. n. Profit and Joe Car
II, appellants Butcher, Clifford &
orrell.
No. 2S (SS9) Umaulla county
matilla River Water Users Associa-
on, appellant, F. II. Bartlett, Fee &
ater, Raley & Raley, versus H. T.
win, ct al, respondents, Roscoe r
lhnson, Lowell & Winter.
No. "a (34D Baker county-Geo.
rickland. appellant. Gustav Ander-
N. versus Commercial Mining CO.,
,spondent, John L. Rand.
No. 20 (S91) Baker county-R. n.
ostwick & Co.. respondent. Drowley
I avops Custov AndarSpp varsuc