OCR Text |
Show rit-st HMrlrt Com I. The following ensca were heanl lu the Pint Dl.lrlct Court at Ogdeti Wed. neaday, Judge Miner presiding: H. J. Hurt et al. vs. W. II. Harvey et al.; motion of l'vanaiV lingers ills ml-elug case at cost of plalulltr. Hophla lliii-.ni va. N. Anderson; on motion of II. H.Jones, order granting defendant ten days further lime to answer. A. W. Meek vs. James Tlionitmn; on motion of N, V. OllUtt, order granted giving plalntlll flfa-en days fuilher tlnio to file statemeut, and ex. tciittnii Is hi-a-by slayrd. Jamea Hiulth vs. M. H. Iluford et al.; on motion of Miller .V Msgluuls, case contlnueil for the term. W. II, Uveretal.vs. plillllu (Irlll; on iiiolion of Al. V. Ollbert, order t-Mei. lg apianratice of L. It, ltogers for de fviidaiit. W. II, Lever vs. P. drill; trial; vcr dirt, hu cause forntlloti. Fre. Ott va. (ieorge Lewis; on motion of Painter A Murphy, order illamlMlng abovo tausu at cost of plain-llir plain-llir by couienl. I'lmvu. In the Provn division of tlti I'lra Dllrlct Court esterday the trial of Ihe la.e of Jamix It. Haiiilltuli vs. Uenja. lulu K. Hmllli was rtsuinu-l. The pLilulill' alleges that Hmllli lias tna. (Aseed upon his premium by cutting hay from tils land and otherwise uliitr Iho same, for which heclaliiisdamages. The ilifeiulanl ilenlts that the land from w hlch he cut the bay belonged to Hamilton, This brought In Iheiiiies Hon of right and title, the contesting of which Is now lielug pursued by ihe attorneys. King represi iillng Ihe plain-II plain-II II' and rienrgeHutlierland the defend Allt. Attorneys William II. King, (leorgu Sutherland and Jacuh Johitsoti were apisilnted In lniiilro Into the quallAni. lions of Dou C. Jolinsou, ailcaut for admission tn the bar. |