The Washington herald., 1911-10-24

appellants. vs.. Henry NJ Talbot: petf-
ton for leave to correct judgment pend
ing the appeal denied.
| No 656. The American National Bank
of Nashville. Tenn. plaintiff in error.
VS.. A. L. Miller agents. &c; motion for
| leave to furnish sixteen copies of record
| as printed for Use Of court below and 10
dispense with lcprintlng granted.
order-It Is ordered that the rules of
| this court he amended as follows, viz:
! Rule 6-Strike ont section > and insert
! the following:
>. Forty-five minutes on each side shall
| be allowed to the argument of a motion,
and no more without special leave of the
gins.
Strike out section ) and insert the fol-
>. The Court, in any pending cause.
VIII receive a motion to affirm on the
ground that it IS manifest that the writ
| or appeal was taken for delay only or
! that the questions on which the decision
| or the cause may DEPEND are so frivolous
as not to need further argument The
same procedure shall apply to and con-
| troll such motions as are provided for in
cases OF motions to dismiss under para
graph of this rule. Although the
| Court, upon consideration of a motion TO
athrm, may refuse to grant the motion,
II may nevertheless, If the conclusion is
arrived at that the case is of such q
character as not to Justify extended ar
, gument order the cause transferred for
hearing TO summary docket. The hear
ing or the causes Oh such docket will he
expedited, the Court providing from time
70 time for such speedy disposition OF
the docket as the regular order of bust
ness may permit, and on the hearing Of
Such causes one-half hour will be al
lowed each side for oral argument
sert the following:
Section 3. One and one-haIf hours on
each side will be allowed for the argu-
ment, and no more, without special leave
Of the court, granted before the argu-
ment begins. But in cases certified from
the Circuit, Court of Appeals, cases in
court below, and cases under the act Of
March ,, 1877 GA Stat, 1246), fOrty-five min
! utes only on each side will be allowed
Tor the argument unless the time be ex-
! tended The time thus allowed may be
apportioned between the counsel on the
same side at their discretion: Provided.
shall be made by the party having the
opening and closing arguments.
NO. 4Jl Quincy, Omaha and Kansas
City Railroad Company, plaintiff in err
ror, VS.. Ora T. ShOhOney. In error to
the Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri. Per curiam: Dismissed for the
want of jurisdiction. Waters-Pierce Oil
Company VS.. Texas C2I2 L: S. 1l2, 1l6-110.
vs., vs., Teasley Q93 I. S. 146. Eustis vs..
No: 524. Yeung How, sometimes known
as Yeung Chow, appellant, VS.. Hart II.
North, United States Commissioner of
immigration, &c. ct al; appeal from the
Circuit Court Of the United States for the
riam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdic-
ton. Farrell VS.. O'Brien Q99 Z. S, 100,
David Kaufman & Sons Co. VS.. Smith
L2l6 L. S, 6l0l, Fong Yue Ting VS.. United
act of May 9. 1889 (22 Stat, 81.
No 635. w. S. Bryan, appellant VS. Bliss
Cook Oak Company ct al; appeal from
peals for the Eighth circuit. Per Gu
riam: Dismissed for the want of juris-
diction. Louisville and Nashville Railroad
G0mp9ny " vs. fGitod MottlsE m y s. 49, Mac
No; 6SS: w. S. Bryan, appellant, VS..
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
missed for the want Of jurisdiction
Louisville and Nashville vs. MOTLEY OH
T.. S. 1870, Macfadden VS.. United States
No 6s7. W. S. Bryan, appellant, vs..
William Bagnell; appeal from the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Eighth circuit. Per. curiam: Dismissed
for. the want of jurisdiction. Louisville
and Nashville Railroad Company VS..
United States C218 T.. S, 2SSJ.
No; ,, 6SS MARCUS G. Rider, appellant,
peal from the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Eighth circuit. Per
curiam: Dismissed for the want of juris-
road Company vs. Motley (211 U. s., I49),
Macfadden vs. United States G13 U. s.,
No. $50. S. L. Moser, appellant, VS..
Edwin S. Layman; appeal from the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Eighth circuit. Per curiam: Dis
missed for the want of jurisdiction.
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com
pany VS.. Motley (2l1 U. s., 49, Macfad-
den VS.. United States (213 U. s., 2SS.
No. 713 Elizabeth Cassidy ct al, plain
tiffs in error, VS.. The People of the State
of Colorado, on the relation Of the Attor-
ncy General of Colorado; in error to the
Supreme Court of the State Of Colorado.
Per curiam: Dismissed for the want OF
jurisdiction. Farrell VS.. o'Brien 1S9 U.
s, 100, David Kaufman & Sons Co. VS..
Smith (216 y. s.. 610), Elder VS.. Colorado
No. 299. j. A. scriven Company, ap-
pellant, VS.. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Com
pany; appeal from the United States Cir
cult Court of Appeals for the Eighth cir
cult. Per curlam: Dismissed for the
want Of jurisdiction. Farrell VS..
O'Brien Qs9 u. s., 100; David Kaufman
& Sons Company VS.. Smith (2l6 u. s.,
6l0), section Of act of March 3, 1881,
(chap. 517, S Stat, S2S. And see Hutchin-
son, Pierce & Co. VS.. Loewy (217 u. s.,
No. 4lS Mike Beecham, plaintiff in
error, VS.. The United States; in error to
the Supreme Court of the Philippine
Islands. Per curism: Dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. Farrell VS.. O'Brien (199
u. g., 100; David Kaufman & Sons Com
pany VS.. Smith (2l6 U. s., 610; DownSs
Continued on PaEe 2, Column z.