OCR Text |
Show llcfoiu Jttilo Ilailcli. Thu legal arguments In tho case of Jcruts M. daily et nl. . thu Vork Mining Icoiuinny ueru concluded before Judgu Kartell jisterdny afternoon after-noon and submitted. A Judgment Is being held 111 reserve pending the examination of authorities cited by counsel. The caioof Mrs. (J. Ccrrghlno vs. J, Newmanet al. was dismissed by con sent for want of Jurisdiction lu thu low cr couit, tho question of costs to be tnkeu up ut a later date. It was nn appeal from a Justice at lllngham, and Involved the question of title to real estate, hence me lack (of Jurisdiction. Thu next mutter buloru Ills Honor was n suit with thu sime title, mid being thu tame case with the exception that It su regulaily brought lu the Third District Court. Thu plaint!!! alleged that the was tho owner of certain primtsos In lUhghura,au I that for ears past there lias been a private alleyway between her remllei and the prenilsis of thu defendants, lie-ceutly lie-ceutly the defendant built an addition to these premises, which closed up the alley, and Ihe plalullll now sought to recover damagis In the turn of 100, and asked that the ohitructloiit be removed and defendantt enjoined fiom further similar Interference with htr rights. Alter thu plalullll had offered bis Itsllmony thu defendants moved for a non-suit and the motion was sustained. A twenty days' stay of execution wai allowel, and the plalntlir was allowed thirty daye lo servu a statement uu motion for k new trial aud bill of exceptions, William H. Hlmpkini vs. Huian I,, l'lutt et ul; wltuesiea examined and argument postponed until thla morning. Jotiqli 11. Taj lor vs. Uugeue 1,. HlgglntJdefMilt ufdofoudaut and docile do-cile of loreclosuro lu favor uf the plalnlll!. |