Show COURT counT NOTES FROM 1 Im Ia Important Tu- Tu Je gui gal Question tiomi n to to Answer er NOhl March S. S Does S-Does Does a district t have tho tIme power powel to vacate a a. i judgment which has been lleen docketed In Inthe I Ithe the he district ie court from oun tt u ju justice of or the I peace o of Ir a u city not mint within the iii fl I hl This is the question which Judge Greenwood Is cal called d u upon nn to lo decide in inthe inthe the lie case caS of the tima the Mammoth Mercantile itc company cOllay vs s E E. Hale lItle I et lt al Francis G G. Luke Lule for fOl the r obtained a cm judgment judg ment In the Murray lunay court cout which time the t ll defendant claims was done ilone Illegally y The rhe case caRl came caine before herJe Judge J Greenwood Green wood on tn an hum action of Cr the lle defendant to vacate time the tE Judgment jm h he claiming that thatus us its this now had the Iho effect of or mf a a. Judgment Judg judg- I I ment o of this court t. tutu this com court t hail full fUn Jurisdiction ion I to tn n vacil Ce same Tim t plaintiffs plaintiff's plaIntiffs plaIntiff's plain plain- tiffs tiff's counsel cited cHell mi authorities t hoi lo tl ii the time contrary In Iii the lie cacti of or the Spider company vs it company ot ul nl iii 11 the tho iii M to tu solve the tho thie y lt onU uhei U l' hf uell ill b by Jud c l Se of tt the th judicial lct ordered oi was wn su xu stis- stis Jl t M K S F f i 5 r 1 i J If J i h r r 1 company JUo rh J Jug the time motion fur for or u it I new tar n M Hn lii this tills case Is 18 set sot down dowl for tOI or March I 11 11 1 sZ Thompson vs S N. N A A. Robertson et a al nl This Timis j iv is time Iho third 01 or c cr r fourth time hue thai limit this eUl lots has come before before be be- fore Core tho the court Time The demurrer Interposed interposed Inter Intel posed I by time defendants defendant's counsel to lo tolie the lie amended amel ded complaint was uvas wasu sustained u c l by hy the he court and amid anI plaintiff was given 20 dl days in iii which to file fu an amended complaint W. W V V. Davis Dal s 's vs u Rio tw Grande Glon c Western Railroad company om pal The motion of or th time the to set st n aside ide judgment was vas denied de do- I nied I |