The Washington herald., 1921-01-21
DAILY COURT CALENDAR.
COURT OF TBE DIS
TRICT OF COLUMBIA.
CRIMINAL DIVISION Ne. L.

SUPREME COURT OF TEE DIS
TRICT OF COLUMBIA.
CRIMINAL DIVISION Ne. L.
ArraixnRents for To-day.
United States VS.. Morris LeR.
Genus. Jefferson H. Clark, James N.
Cannon. Max Taleman. Edwin L.
iceberg, Maurice Glicksman, Lewis
Thomas. John E. Brown, John Ste
'yenson. Mckinley Cunningham, Nor
ris' Elias and Frank B. Devereaux.
To Change Pleas.
U. IS. VS.. Monroe Robinson and
Marcus L. Campbell.
MotIoas and Sentences.
U. S. VS.. Carrie johnson, RAY
mond Davis, Lucy Wood, Eleanor
Wood. Marion L. Redmond, Lester
H Morrison, William Smith, How
ard E. Merta, Joseph L. Jones, Ho-
mer W. Hawkins, Samuel Line, Paul
Ward. Frank Evans, Walter e. Jor-
dan and George H. Thomas.
CRIMINAL DIVISION No. :.
Motions and Sentences.
U. S. vs. John A. Farrell, Fred
Thompson, Douglas H. West, James
E. Jameson, SGarnett Diggs and Ray
mond Hughes
EQUITY DIVISION No. L.
Motions.
Slaughteri National Vaccine.
Rule.
: Jacobs Tvs. Jacobs. Motion to
dismiss.
McIntire Tvs. Dupont. Rule as
to joining in deed.
Swartzell, Rheem and Hensey
Company VS.. TOUrnier. Rule as to
substitute trustee.
In re bankruptcy Gore and Com
pany. Motion to dismiss objections
to discharge.
In re establishment of building
line on Park road. Motion to con-
hrm berdict
Lanneau vs.. Kroeschell Brothers.
Rule-intInction.
Humphrey VS.. Lindberg. Rule.
Richardson VS.. Richardson. Rule.
10 Gray VS.. Gray. Rule.
IL DePue VS.. Pugh.t Rule-injunc-
ton.
IL BarnesIys. Barnes. To reduce
alimony.
Is Bergentvs. Bergen. Rule as to
alimony.
II yelling VS.. Toner. Petition OF
receiver for instructions,
Is Parker VS.. Kerr. Report and
petition of trustees for Instructions
l6 Anderson VS.. Anderson. Rule.
l. National Surety Company vs..
Maxwell. Rule.
is Murdock VS.. Murdock. Rule.
ls In re bankruptcy Elmore ct al.
Rule as to delivery of stock.
20 Heffernan VS.. Parks. To dis
miss substitute petition.
81 Deyakos VS.. Devakos Rule
- Harrison VS.. Curtis. To pro-
duce and surrender last will and
testament.
% Bauer VS.. Bauer. Rule-mo-
tiOn to strike.
"A In re opening of alley in suuar-
1861. For leave to make deposit
into court.
25 PfOtenhauer VS.. Garvan. To
dismiss.
CIRCUIT DIVISION No. 1.
Motions.
l MOsher vs.. Karrick. Motion for
new trial-tO fix costs-for leave to
file amended bill.
George VS.. Thompson. For new
trial
3 Stein VS.. Coon. For Judgment
under rule Is.
4 Snow VS.. Letter To Quash sum-
mons and dismiss appeal-to strike
out plaintiffs afidavit
Monk VS.. Hesse. For return OF
property.
8 Pyne VS.. Herz. To Quash sum-
mons and dismiss complaint-to
strike out plaintiffs affidavit of
merit.
Park VS.. Harris. For judgment.
Gardiner and Dent VS.. Tuley.
For judgment.
Parker VS.. Clark. To strike ont
plaintiffs affidavit.
10 Moore VS.. Nat. Cong. of Mothers
ct al For judgment under rule Is.
IL L. S ex rel Nash VS.. D. e.
Commissioners. Rule to show cause.
u Gates VS.. Clark. To quash
summons-to dismiss cause.
ID Shannon and Luchs VS.. Hutch
insOn. To quash summons-to dis
miss complaint
IA David VS.. Pitcher. For judg-
ment under rule 1S.
Is Bell VS.. LOughrsn extr. To
strike out plaintiffs pleadings and
reform same.
l6 Peoples National Bank VS.. Ken
nedy ct al. For judgment VS.. de-
PENDANTS 1-2-3.
II Quinter. receiver, VS.. Campbell.
For judgment under rule 70.
Is Swartzell. Rheem and Hensey
Company VS.. Ryan. To quash sum
mOns-to dismiss complaint.
19 Goldenberg VS.. Louis. For
judgment-forp possession.
20 Thyson VS.. Weacrete Engineer
ing Company. For commission.
81 Grauno VS.. Wearcrete En-
gineering Company. For commits
sion.
% LalIy Rohlader Company VS..
Engineering Company.
For commission
% Brayshaw VS.. Chaplin. To dis
miss appeal.
"a Disney VS.. Baltimore and Ohio
Railway. For security for costs
25 Curran VS.. Bamick. For judg-
p,apf un5ar r,,ln 10