The Washington herald., 1921-01-28
SUPREME COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
CRIMINAL DIVISION No. 1.
Assignments for Today.
Motions and Sentences.

| MOTIONS and sentences.
United States VS.. Mario Saija,
Harry J. Beaner, John II. Smith.
Clarence Young, Victor b. Keen,
Carl c. Logan. Thomas II! Faunt-
roy William o. Hill, Carrie John
| son, Ernest Payne, Darlington Cas-
| ter, Henry Jackson, Louis Johnson,
Walter Clay and all other cases
left over from last assignment.
ArraIgnments,
United States VS.. George Wilson,
| alias George Hamel, Reuben Stans-
bury, Roger BeauchRmp, William
H. Preston, Earl Ware, Joseph Sny-
derman, Wallace D. Lyles, Arthur
| Fleming, Arthur Dawson, George
Jones, Thomas N. Harley, Mahaley
/ A. McNeilly, Marjorie B. Chew. Clar-
ence n. Southard, J. B. williams
and John Zen.
To Change Plea.
United States VS.. Martin c. Nor
gan.
CRIMINAL DIVISION No. :.
Motions and Sentences.
United States VS.. Edward Thomas
Roney, Fred Thompson, James E.
Jamerson, and Garnett Diggs.
Lunscy InauIsitIons.
In re James A. Wood.
In re Leila Boynton Wilson.
In re Bankruptcy U206) Gore
& Co. To dismiss objections to dis
charge. Attorneys Darr, whiteford
and Darr. White-Shappiro.
2 In re establishing building
lines on Park road G227). To con-
firm verdict. Exceptions to verdict
Attorneys Stephens-Hart. Lambert
3. Dorsey vs.. Dorsey. Rule as to
contempt. Attorneys Groaaman-Tur-
mage.
sa In re Bankruptcy Moorhead
& Elmore. Rules. Attorneys Hoch-
ling, Peelle & Ogilby.
4. Barnes VS.. Barnes. To reduce
alImony. Attorneys Gusack-wolf.
5. National Surety Co. VS.. Max
well. Rule as to intervening petit
ton. Attorneys Hinton BArger, ct
al.
6. Heffernan VS.. Parks. To dis
miss substituted petition. Attorneys
Hudson. Tucker & Frailey.
Z. Bauer VS.. BaueN Rule as to
contempt-motion to strike. Attor-
neys Morehouse-Smith.
s. Pfotenhauer VS.. Garvan. To
dismiss. Attorneys Barton & Willis
-Laskey.
9 McDevitt VS.. McDevitt. Rule
as to alimony pendente lite. Attor-
neys Murphy-Hawken & Havell.
10. Barber VS.. Barber. Rule. At
son.
IL Wathen VS.. 100 cords OF
wood. To dismiss intervening an
swer OF petitioner. Attorneys Hume
& Calvert, jr.-Costigsn.
IL. Berry VS.. conn ct al. Rule as
to Injunction. Attorneys WEIGH.
Lane.
13. Lanneau VS.. Kroeschel Bros.
Ice Machine Co. To dismiss. At
torneys McNeill-Laskey
"a. John VS.. John. Rule as 10
contempt. Attorneys King-O'Brien.
10. Biggs Engineering Co. vs.
Matthias Bros. To amend bill. At
tOrneys Downey & Berry-white &
Norey.
Is. Jacobs VS.. Jacobs. For ap-
pointment of receiver. Attorneys
Wright & Ershlcr-Patterson.
II. Kennedy Bros. VS.. Cochran.
To strike out parts of answer At
torneys Mather-Newmycr /
is. Spinks vs. Spinks For coun-
sci fees. Attorneys Grossman-
Nangan
10. In re opening Of Benninp
read. Hearing on exceptions to YER |
dict-mCtion to confirm verdict not
exceptions. Attorneys |
stephens & Hart-SuIlivan ct al
CIRCUIT DIVISION NO. 1.
Motion Day.
l. Mosher vs.. Karrick. For now
trlal-to Ak costs. ATTORNEYS ReII
NJ. and R.-MerIllat and Richardson
}. Parker VS.. Clark. To strike out
plaintIff's afidavit. ATTORNEYS Clarke
Hudson.
4. United States ex rel Nash vs.
D. c. Commissioners. Rule to show
cause. Attorneys Williamson-Cla-
gett. Stephens-Hart.
3. Peoples National Bank vs.. Ken
nedy ct al. For judgment vs. de-
'endants l, ? and 3. Attorneys Dow
and Hamilton and H.
8. ouinter. receiver VS.. Campbell.
For judgment under rule 70. At
.Orneys Quinter-Darr, w. and D.
:. Swartzell. Rheem and Hensev
vs.. Ryan. To squash summons-to
dismiss complaint. Attorneys Sui
ivan-Hudson.
s. Goldenberg vs.. Louis. For judg-
nent - for possession. Attorneys
Wolf-Beyser.
9. The F. H. Smith Company VS..
Iagle. Demurrer to defendant'sl
.hird plea Attorneys Lloyd -
Kelley and Morey.
10. Thyson VS.. Wearcrete En-
cheering Company. For commits
lion. Attorneys Douglas, o. and D.
Srandenburg.
II. Brauno VS.. Wearcrete Engineer
ng Company. Same as 10.
l2. Lally. Rohlader Company VS..
Hearcrete Engineering Company.
same as 10.
IS. DeLllley vs.. Capital Tractionl
Company. For security for costs.
attorneys Lambert and Yeatman-
dunlop.
IA. Wells VS.. Odekoven. Demurrer
0 amended decl. Attorneys Nc
Is. Walker and Company VS.. Sloan.
'or judgment under rule 10. At
orneys Wilson -Palk-Hudson.
l6. Rauscher VS.. Cunningham. De-
lurrer to decl. Attorneys Easily
mith- Fleharty. Hogan-Grant.
II. Moore and Hill VS.. Robinson,
o quash summons-to dismiss com.
laint-to strike out plaintiffs afi- ;
avit. Attorneys CoStigan-Hudson.
l8. Philips vs. Lipschutz nernurxo-