The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1911-06-24
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
Two Indians Recently Indicted
For Murder Will Have Their
Trial On June 81

In the District Court. Judge Peter
Breen presiding. the following matters
have received the attention of the
Court:
Laura A. Bourne vs.. David A.
Bourne, prayer for decree of divorce
On June ~ the plaintiff was given until
June IA to amend her complaint. When
the case came up on the latter date the
Court ordered that the defendant pay to
plaintiffs attorney the sum of $3.50. also
$40 for costs and expenses to be incurred
in the prosecution of this suit, such
sums to be paid within 10 days after the
service of a copy Of this order upon
defendant. 1t was further ordered that
defendant pay to plaintiff on the 18th
day of each month thereafter during
the tendency Of this action, for her
support and maintenance, $50 per
month. II was further ordered that
the above order be enforced as provided
by section 504 Of the Compiled Laws of
Nevada.
On June 10 the case of Mary Ella
Loofbourrow VS.. Harlan L~oofbourrow,
asking for a decree of divorce, was
called. After affidavits of summons
had been offered and received In evi.
deDce, and default offered and received,
it was ordered that the decree of divorce
be granted in accordance with the find.
ing of facts and rules of law filed.
When the case of Spencer Reynolds.
Receiver of the Eureka County Bank,
VS.. Imogene Hanover and f. @. Van.
over came up last Saturday. T. J. Nc.
Parlin. representing the plaintiff.
moved that the defendants be required
to appear before the Court at some
future time to be fixed by this Court,
and then and there have and produce
all papers, writs, processes and other
instruments relating to said cause,
which they or either of them now
have or which came into their posses
sion purporting to be left or served on
them or either of them in said case.
This motion is based upon facts taken
from the records and files of this court
in said cause. The further hearing of
this case was continued Until June 81.
State of Nevada VS.. Indian Maggie
aad Indian Tom-Tuesday was the time
set by the Court for these defendants
to appear and plead to the indictments
for murder found against them by the
present Grand Jury. They appeared
with Attorney ii. K. Mitchell as their
counsel, aud the State was represented
by District Attorney 7. j. McParlin.
The following proceedings were had;
In answer to a question by the Court,
counsel for defendants stated that he
was ready. and counsel for the State
also stated that he was ready to proceed:
Thereupon, counsel for defendants
asked and had filed in behalf of his
clients demurrers to said indictment
heretofore found by said Grand Jury.
Argument WAS then proceeded with by
respective counsel.
After argument the Court overruled
the demurrer, to which ruling of the
Court counsel for the defendants duly
excepted.
Counsel for defendants then moved the
Court TO set aside the indictment. The
motion being submitted, the COURT over.
ruled the motion, to which ruling of the
Court defendants duly excepted.
In answer..to a question by the Court,
counsel for defendants entered the plea
of not guilty,
fhe Court then ordered the interpre.
ter to state to defendants that their
counsel had entered the plea OF not
guilty.
Thereupon, by consent of respective
counsel, the case OF the State of Nevada
VS.. Indian Maggie aud Indian Tom was
set for trial on June 81, 1911, and the
defendants were remanded to the
custody of the sheriff without bonds.