Show D 1 1 d alik the hewn k ca s pafford ai rt h I 1 f t at ten morning the first district in this t city was opened as per adjournment the caloric condition of the court room was sufficient to ruffle the most equable temperament mehera ba mard M ard white adam brose present 0 bai on acco account bitof tho the absence 1 N kimball Kim balI defendants attorney the passing pawing sentence was deferred till wednes day morning at 30 10 at the request of mr Dicke dickson an attachment was is issued fo rAli gusta bergen a witness in tb tho 0 case of the U S vs john bergen mrs ufa susan parry entered a pica plea of not guil guilty to an indictment chr charging pe perjury U ang bergen plead not guilt guilty 7 to the indictment charging poly gamy daniel harringan ingan was an applicant cant for citizenship citi citizenship zenshi his answers to of the court were satisfactory and he was admitted the case of the U 8 vs john bergen was called and mr ben bert sheeks offered an application fora for a continuance on the ground that ono one important witness for the defense eels is now in in new york and defendant hopes by the next term of court to have this witness in attendance or produce other testimony equivalent to that which this witness could burnh the application not granted on tho the ground that the showing allowing is ins ins sufficient mr sheeks stated for himself and mr richards that they had had no time to consult their client as he is now tied undergoing r 0 D a term of imprisonment the f va US is not in such itch a great reat hurry to punish the deafen dint ant a continuance could very readily be gi given ven on ther the showing by permission of the court the affidavit wa wai amended to read that defendant married a woman in 1883 some years before the alleged legal marriage noted in the indict ment the m matter atter was angui argued A by both sides aides and the court finally granted further time for the defense to fifa anaw a anuw affidavit which shall set forth tho the grounds which the defense has for supposing they the can obtain the testimony of the witness mentioned also whether there has ever been a divorce the case was then set for trial on the 2nd of june with thoi privilege of renewing the application for a continuance if desired the case of E H orth vs XA X FA A brown was called and a jury em u panelled panel led this is an action for tre trespass and alleged cuttin cutting gand and parry carrying ing pway ol 01 lucera ba hayou 4 0 0 property of which plaintiff ailed alleges e a himself himself the owner the plaintiff s stated that defendants admission in his answer as to the amount of hay taken and its value would be accepted the only que question silon now at issue is as to the title to the property the defense claimed that the plaintiff only held the property ai security from W H pi pidcock cock 0 on n a loan to him from orth that Z C M I 1 for whom mr brown was acting as agent secured the title to the property by virtue of a mar afar a deed Z C at I 1 having se cured judgment against W H pid ceck and secured tho the property at a MArs marshala bals sale E 11 orth testified and wae was closely cross examined by J L rawlins for the defense A recess was taken i AFTERNOON at two pm the court resumed its session and levi wa was asked if he had any thins to eay say why sentence for unlawful cohabitation should not bo be passed upon him mr replied that he had nothing particular to say ho he is is a poor man and has a I 1 largo arg family the fhe court then stated that he would defer sentence till uvo five p pm M and in the meantime would jook look into the circumstances of Min nerley and smith tho thie case of orth vs brown I 1 was then resh resumed med the def defense ense offered in evidence tho the record of tho the court in the case of Z C M I 1 vs W H pidcock to show allow that judgment by default had bad been entered giving Z C al 1 I possession po session sion of the land in question this was objected to by plain plaintiffs tWo att attorney orney hon P PH H emerson whereupon mr J L rawlans Raw luns for the defense introduced tho the judgment judgment roll in ferreii the case re referred to still tho thol counsel for plaintiff strenuously opposed the movement and a hard battle ensued on on various technicalities cali ties connected with judgment rolls and the manner in which they should bo be recorded ged and otherwise feroe led f the court overruled the object tion to the admission of the papers and held that although the capeis papers are not attached as they 8 should hould be they are adini adm seable isbIt as evidence evi desce deace the case was still in P progress when we went to press |