OCR Text |
Show SUPREME COURT BUSINESS. A Light Day's Proceedings Before tbe Judges. IlT I aer-Hllne; JllrUdltlloil m Jii.llroor lhe I'enoe lithe. It tv.ll) lor ,, I'lnhillll lu thu rerrltorlal Huprcmu court today, lu thu casu uf (ilovanna Ceru-ghlno Ceru-ghlno vs. thu I'hlr I dls lid enurl, tliu aiillcatlon to llio a writ of reillorarl was ilenlrd. Judgo Zitio rendcrud tlfo decision, whleli was concurred In by Judgta Mln.r nud lllacliliuin. The llnlutiU eomuiciicel au action of la-t. beloio ii Justice of the iiacu In June, lsUJ The tit feudants lu that full 1 ut lu luu tho titles of thu In In-till In-till lo lheoattealaii and ownership of tho lands allege I to liu lret aased Un. rim lu.llco i f thu itaca jrurttded to luar thu casu and nil ired Judi,uieiil forflOOandcoit for Hie ilalntlll. I nit action of the jutllrv as U tu id from, ami wheu thu citueumo btfuro Judgu Kartell In thu dlslrli t lourl hu Uls. mlsied tho action licauie tliu Justice (llhuleaiu had wronglully auiimed Jurladiclluu. llio coals uf tho lineal wiruulea us.tiaiil by thudlatrlet court agalmtihu plalutlil Conghlno, who uiplltd tu thoHu lemocoutt for a wilt ol lerilorarl on tliu ground that the dUirlct court elfei'Jed lis Jurlsdlclloil In entering luJgimul agalutl her for thu c ials. Her uj iiltoatluti was denied, thoBuirciuucouriea)lngi "A Jui-tieo ol the tacu shoulj rtluto toussume lurladlctiniiofn cause of action which uu Its face le death nut within Ills Jurisdiction. He should rsfiiao lo net aud then llitro coul t bo no Judgment lo ai leal from. Hut II ho assumta Juris-diction Juris-diction an I outers Judgment dismissing dismiss-ing thu ucll in, uu aijeal lies, or ii hu wrongfully dtoldee that hu hus JiirltJIitlou, and trlus Ihu csta mil enters Judgment, au a) peal lies fruni Hist " I'lio diatrict court, having authority lo duel lo Ihu qutatlou uud d bin Iwi llio can, had authority lu adjudgu Ihu oasis of tho appeal against Hie ilalntlll. Under this ruling tho I lull till has to ay rosls Iniurrtd through Ilia wrongful luituuiptluii of Jutl.Jlelloii by a uttlce of the -nac. rho euiu of tho llyau and lteam Caltlo oompan), apieilant, vs. John (', Murdock et al., rtspoiidtult, was ttibmlltud uu tliu argument of John M. sua fur tliu auDellaut uud Ocoruu Hutlierlind for thu respondents. Arguments were Hun begun In the suit ol llii'an Harris vs. Illthard Chljmau, Prauk Tierce spuu ring for Harris, thu appellant, r i , hu A. Marshall for tho n-npotn eut. lu thu sureme court )eslirdiy aftern on Itiucaaesof Lt.ler I II iger. uipelluut v Jenulo V, ihomi-jou et at. camo up fur argument uu k(qoal from tho I bird dUtrltl c titll i I. ICtllogcanl L. I. Corfmtii aud II.IJ-win II.IJ-win A. lutiockui eared for thoail-lanl, thoail-lanl, and W.H. lllckiau, Wllllums A Vancott, Marshall A. It))Io and LoOran i Young for thu retiKiudents. riiudliUlu her.arlic. a. tnou uudl vlled Oliu-fullltll llillleit III the Continental hottland tliu adjoining ruimly, w hlch tild luterest Is valuod uluuoiil luil.UOD. rtie lalulltr lliod lilt suit III the Third diatrict couit on 1 aliruary I., Hit)., aulalltged that hn was a co-owtier with the defeudanli of thu protrly In qurttloc, the title Ihtreio coming through Itaio Kogerr, who fettled upon thu laud uud filed Ills claim thereto mauy years ago and never relinquished the claim ur told Ihu ro erty to anyone, It waa further alleged thai ,u! Ihu heirs uf thuBAld Iraao llogsra ha remained Iiiundls. luled luittiilon of tlio roperty utter hit dt alii, except tho ) lilutlll, and that thu tame was sulstqueutly trantterrtd to other partite Then lollowtd thu usual praitr fur teller, rtiudeleudants demurred to tlio complaint upon tlio I rounds that It did not ttalo facta sullloleiit to lonstlluleacauiuof ac-Hon, ac-Hon, uud further that the action was Itrrtd ly dlllerent lectloui of the Matuto of llmltitlous. Thu demurrer wiiatuitaliird, and from the ruling the plalstltl now up tailed. |