Mexico Missouri message., 1912-02-29

OItdl, lIuoJtt NS. y. W. I pldlll'
ct al, Damage; Emma Carter
Wright VS.. Grant L. Wright, Di-
vorce; f. j. Moydell VS.. T. w. AS
burk, Cancel note; Taylor NJ.
Dowell, ct al VS.. INK. Heirs Row
lings, Perfect title; c. K. Spence
VS.. C. & A. r. r. Co, Damage.
Friday, March 8.-S. d. Byrns,
ct al VS.. C. & A. r. r, Co., Dam
age; X. NJ. Smith, ct al VS.. c. & A.
r. R. Co., Damage; G. w. Skinner
VS.. w. w. Arnold, Contract;
Chas. Dean VS.. Frank Wentz, Con
tinued Sarah Frazier VS.. i. H.
Hannah, Same Mollie c. Banter,
ct al VS.. Joella Ess, ct al, Same;
j. NJ. Settle VS.. Ollie Moore, ct al,
Same.
Saturday, March 9th,-Rebec-
ca A. Ardrey VS. VIM. Ardrey, Di-
vorce; Nellie L. jain VS.. Geo. G.
jain, Divorce; Dora Cross VS..
John Cross, Divorce; Henry j.
Embree VS.. INK. Heirs of Houch-
ems. Continued; In the matter of
Helm estate, A. G.. Turner, Trus-
tee, Same; In the matter of Hy.
Hawkins, Assignment Callie Is.
Griffin VS.. Finnis Y. Griffin, Di-
vorce.
Monday, March 11th.-Com. p.
Storts, ct al VS.. G. & A. r. K. Co.,
ct al, Suit for damage; State Ex'
j. u. Orear VS.. The Wabash R. r.
Co. Same; w. w. Conner VS.. Car
ter johnson, Dissolve partner
ship; Weber Implement Aut. Co.
VS.. L. F. Williams, On note; State
of Missouri VS.. Irwin Stevenson,
Continued; Glen Carroll VS.. G. q
A. R. r. Co., Suit for damage;
Squire Brown VS.. Mexico Brick &
Fire Clay Co., Suit for damage.
Tuesday, March 12th.-B. c.
Gray VS.. The American Express
Co., Suit for damage; Geo. IL.
Adams VS.. G. e. A. r. R. CO.,
Same: r. X. Buckner VS.. G. & A.
R. r. Co., Same; j. F. Vigal VS..
C. & A. r. R. Co., Continued;
State of Missouri vs.. G. II. Harri-
son. Same; Coatsworth Lumber
Co. VS.. d. c. Owen, ct al, Submit
ted on brief and continued; Della
NJ. Fields, ct al VS.. f. Gotlieb
jacob. Taken under advisement
and continued.
Wednesday, March 13th.-C. {.
Ehrlich VS.. c, & A. r. r. Vo., Suit
for Damage; W. ID. Mason, ct al
VS.. c. B. & Q. r. R. Co., Same;
James L. Kelly VS.. c. & A. R. r.
Co, Same; Fruin Bambrick Con-
struction Co. VS.. Mexico, Santa Fe
& Perry Traction Co., Continued
by consent; j. V. Humphreys VS..
Mexico Brick & Fire Clay Co.,
Same; Charles G. Ackman VS..
James T. johnson, Same; Mo.
Poultry and Game Co. VS.. Joseph
A. Norman, Continued.
Thursday, March 14th.- The
Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.
VS.. Fidelity Phoenix Fire lnsur-
ance of New York, Continued,
Waiting ruling of the Supreme
Court; The Gold Issue Mining &
Milling Co. VS.. The Penn Fire In
surance Co. of Philadelphia,
Same; The Gold Issue Mining &
Milling Co. VS.. The Corporation
of the Royal Exchange Assurance
of London, England, Continued,
waiting ruling of the Supreme
Court; The Gold Issue Mining &
Milling Co. vs.. Atlas Assurance
Co. of London, Same; The Gold
Issue Mining & Milling Co. VS..
Equitable Fire G. Marine ms. Co.
of Providence, R. l., Same; The
Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.
VS.. Scottish Union & National In
surance Co., Same; The Gold Is
sue Mining & Milling Co. VS.. The
New Hampshire Fire ms. Co. Of
Manchester, Same; The Gold Is
sue Mining & Milling Co. VS.. Roy
al Ins, Co. of Liverpool, Same !;
The Gold Issue Mining & Milling
Co. VS.. Fire Association of Phila-
delphia, Same; The Gold Issue
Mining & Milling Co. VS.. The Pro-
vidence-Wa Washingtoin Ins. Co. of
Providence, R. l., Continued,
waiting ruling of the Supreme
Court; The Gold Issue Mining &