The Daily Legal News (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Vol. 12, No. 309, Ed. 1 Thursday, August 31, 1916 Page: 1 of 4
four pages : ill. ; page 20 x 16 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
LAW
REAL ESTATE
BUILDING
•♦+++++++++++1
THE DAILY LEGAL NEWS
- + •!■ + + + + ***♦♦♦.
FINANCIAL AND
GENERAL
INTELLIGENCE
>* + + + * + + + + + + + 4?
VOLUME 12.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, THURSDAY EVENING AUGUST 31, .1916
NUMBER 308
DISTRICT COURT
GEO. W. CLARK..............Judge
JOHN W. HAY80N............Judge
EDWARD D. OLDFIELD......Judge
JAMES BEATY .........Court Clerk
DISTRICT COURT PHONES:
Judge Clerk............Walnut 5917
Judge Heyson ..........Walnut 3148
Judge Oldfield ..........Walnut 5915
Oiatrict Clerk...........Walnut 8516
LIEN
None.
PROCEEDINGS.
NOTICE
Papers In case of Feathers ▼ Hugh
es et al No. 13240 District Court are
missing, will attorney who has them
please return at once as they are
needed in the taking of depositions.
JAMES BEATY
CLERK
WANTED BY YOUNG LAWYER
Young Lawyer from Misslssipi,
three years practice, Uifiverr^lty
Graduate wants work In busy Law Of
fice of Oklahoma City or State Would
make some lawyer who needs a young
lawyer in his office a good assistant.
I have been admitted to the practice
of this State and have familiarized
myself with the laws of the State
During my short practice in the
Criminal Civil, Equity and Bankrupt-
cy Courts. I can furnish the best of
references from all of the Courts and
iBar. As to my standing before the
courts, and as to my good moral char
acter. I do not smoke, drink nor
chew and have no had habits. I have
the best of reasons for having to give
up my practice in Mississippi and for
having to come'West. 1 promise to
give satisfaction.
If you do not happen to need a
young lawyer in your office but know
of some one who does I shall always
be grateful to you for your kind in-
formation.
j. Emmett ‘Buckley
1020 N Broadway.
Phone W 5991
By Judge Clark.
9912—Bernstein v Hughes et al.
Reset 1U—4 by agree
19749—Smelser v Umboltz et al.
Deft to file ans inst A out of time.
190/i>—Peshek v Farmers Nat Bk.
Lv to W 8 Guthrie to amd ans inst |
A oat of time.
19183—Okla aFim Mtgj Co v Cut I
chall et al Judg for plff for 9543.50 |
A frcl per J E.
STENOGRAPHER
MRS. VEST
DEPOSITIONS General'Work
PHONE W. 7200
NOTARY 301 Patterson Bldg.
Strand Theater
111 W. Main
ay judae Oldfield
I Pictures of Quality Only
None.
Judge Hayeon.
McGowan Lv to en I
3929—State v
dorse naimed on Inf.
19309—Caldwell v Carr Safety Ap
pliance Co Dis with prej cost plff
18342—Sharp v Sharp Strlk by
agree.
6184—Edwards v Pauli et al Exec
recall.
MOTION DOCKET.
NEW CASES.
20065—Hattie B French v Chas H
Rutn et al To declare trust A res-
tr order Ans 9—25 Everest A Camp
bell pirfs attys.
2006b—H O Crum v R R Morris
Ahst of Judg from F S Goodrich
J P 1 L Harris plff at.,y.
2006/—In re Habeas Corpus of
Henry Lawrence Mainer, Burns A
Tnnov flttVd
2t>068—in re Habeas Corpus Burt
Burleson Same attys.
20069— Blanche Curry v Geo H
Curry Divorce Ans 11—1 Phil E
Winter plffs atty.
20070— Caroline Leon v United
States Lloyds Dam on Ins Policy
3139 Ans 10-6 Wm Phieffer plffs at
ty.
20071— Minn Lbr Co v H F Brown
et al Note $515.65 A frcl on Mater
lien L 15-16-17 B 13 Epw Vw Ans
9-29 Warren K Snyder plffs atty
PLEADINGS.
19205—O'Connor et al v Cushing
Ref Co Reply
19660—Kennedy Inc v Ford Motor
Co et al Reply.
19841—Hunter v West Nat Bk et
al Reply.
19070—Peshek v Reed et al Amd.
ans of W S Guthrie.
19529—Wichita Mill A Elev Co v
Hagaman Reply.
19788—Rupert v Crain et al. Sep
ans A zpet.
19749—Smelser v Gmholts et al.
Joint ans J H Bailey et al
20056—»n re Habeas Corpus Tom
Morrison Return to writ.
20056—In re Habeas Corpus Jack
Morrison Same
MOTIONS ANB FILINGS.
19930—Riddle et al v Stewart A
WBderson To make def
19985—Conroy v Spscek To dis
13420—Marks et al v Baum Bldg
Co. To conf sh sale.
19723—Huey v Huey For all etc
12610—Cockrel v Jefferys et al.
To conf Sh sale.
19786—Rupert v Crain et al To
make add parties deft.
6104—Edwards v Cooke et al To
recall exec
18002—Elihben et al v Ramey et
al Aff by pub.
20021—Hurt et al ▼ Moore et al
for cont.
19203—Sperry et al v Francis et nl
Dep.
19993—Okla Farm Mtge Co v Dor-
sey Dis.
19930—Riddle et al v Stewart et
al. To make def.
20068—Riggs v Riggs Set aside
order.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
20048—Baker v Baber
20059—Kinder v Kinds*
18634—Ray v Johnson
188/6—Gilliam v Kali lula Coal
Co.
1978*—Rupert v Crain et nl
SUMMONS.
19974—Raphael v Sitee
20064—McClelland
al Per.
20069—Kinder ▼ Kinder Per
20848 Baker v Baker Per.
etal Wal-
Sherman et
Page 190
15588—Beilis v Weisman et al
make def.
18916—Collins Dietx A M Co.
Thomas Dem to obj.
16271—Noll v Caldwell To conf.
sale.
2677—Reardon v McCafferty Dem.
4264—Webb v Baker Dem.
2676—Page v McCafferty Dem
Pace 191
2672—Fiedler v Same Same
2490—Ferris v Same Same
19382—Close Bros v Com. Dem.
18417—Finley v Sbelden For new tr
17879—Assessment Okla St Bk. To
dis app.
16039—St Clair v Dunn et cl To
conf sale.
19567—West Pub Co v Smith. To
make def.
11790—Massey v Atwood et al Re
port of rec.
16243—Okla City ▼ Bd Co Com
Dem.
15648—Fleming v McComaek To
Page 192
18236—Douglas v Macon To conf
sale.
16491—In re Howe Cap Realty Co.
To dis app.
18963—Bragg v Etter et al Dem.
19749—Smelser v Umholtz et al.
Dem.
17660—Miller v Baker Dem.
18891—Schaaf etc v Baker etc Dem
14185—In re app Sophie Thor
To app.
15094—In re App L Eikoff Mo.
18187—Carlisle et al v Carney et
al To conf sale.
Page 193
16451—In re Howe Realty Co To
uis.
18681—Hatfield v Thompson New tr
18867—Schaaf v Baker Dem.
18887—Dickinson v Same Dem.
19396—Winans v ^gker Sep st.
14617—Same v Same Dem.
16770—Bd Com v Storm et al Dem.
16084—In re. asst I B Rolator To
dis
19047'—Zprn v Stumff New tr.
19966—Spain v Hemmingway For
costs.
17625—Yeomans v Dunning New tr
Page 194
14016—Gunness v Stever et al Dem
19728'—Ayers v Mager A Mager.
Dem to pet.
19029—Stand S»v A L Assn v.
Meyers App for rec.
19464—Same v Benson Same
14572—Novak v Venca Recall ex.
ec A sat judg.
197651MBk Arcadia v Fid A Dep.
Co. To make def.
19772— Amer Nat Bk Tulsa v Ames
et al. Same
-- —Kuntz v Oliphant et al Dem.
to pet.
11071—Walnwright Lbr Co v Gar
nett et al Vacate Judg.
19808—Huber v Huber Dem.
19965—Spain v Hemmingway Dias
Inj.
Page 195
17968—Clutter v Clutter New tr.
19592—Kurz v St Bk Newalla To
make def.
19672—St Bk Newalla v Kurz et al.
To strike.
19794—Rennick et a lv Lindley Dis
19793—Novak et al v Mgrkman Dis
19773— Kelley v Specialty Sales Co
To conf
19451—Hill v Bleah Dem.
18236—Douglas v Macon Rec re-
port.
19492—Peoples Nat Bk ▼ Baker.
To make def.
Page 195
8736—Phelan ▼ Main To revive
Judg.
19208—Stull v Stull To make uef
19652—Ezell v Nat L A Realty Co
et al. Dem: To strike.
19984—Smith v Smith Mod order
for all qtc.
19858—Heim v Mills.
19613—Paxton v Cogshall To
18627—Osborn v Osborn To quash,
strike
17839—Ransom ▼ Plggott To conf
sale.
19*07—Ruth v McAdams et al Dem
to pet.
19364—De Bolt v Smith et al Mo
for Judg on pi against deft
19364—Same ▼ Same For deflt.
Judg against deft.
Page 157
17592—Smart vCalloway et al Dem
TOM CLIFT
DEPOSITIONS
NOTAPV
Telephone Walnut . 706
Borrow
Local Money
Saved by
Local People
That’s
Localizing
And Means Batter
Local Conditions
The Local
Building & Loan
Association
136 W. Main.
Phone W. 469
‘We Clean, Others Try”
We Thor-
oughly Clean
and Praaa
Your Suit for
75c
Prompt Auto
8ervice to all
Parts of the
City.
For Faultless Dry Cleaning
CALL
Terminal
CLEANING WORKS
Walnut 4838
10 N Hudaon
to ans.
19906—Dean v Woodson Dem to
pet
18610—Hates v Bonenberger i To
make def.
18396—Swan v Meore Dis app.
18645—Ford v Ozmun To rein-
state app.
19672—St Bk Newalla v Kurz et al
To strike.
17968—Clutter v Clutter New tr.
17892—Jeffreys v Hemmingway.
To sep st A no.
18094—Okla City B A L v Holcomb
To conf sh sale.
19015—Williams v Bridges Approv
rec report To conf sale.
11189—Broughton A Reed v Mid-
dleton et al For secy for costs
Page 198
19438—Vendig v Vendig To mod
all.
Page 198
18748—Whitens v Clark New tr.
18505—Knoell v Mclnnis et al To.
conf sale.
19626—Peyton v Fields et al Dem.
16309—Prl3e v Okla City D A W P
Co. To strike (2)
18505—Knoell v Mclnnes et al To
conf sale.
19923—Modlin v City Release of
Judg.
19905—Uipdegraff v Nichols (chief)
et al To strike.
Page 198
12446—School Dlst v Nat Surety
Co. For judg on pi.
1909/—Lewis v Spears To strike
19857—Studebaker Corp v De Meg
llo To make def.
19646—Little v Schubert To make
add defts
19651—Witherspoon v Myers Dem
Page 199
16524—Kauffman v Hales et al.
For add secy.
198/4—Emmons v Cap Ice & Strg
Co To make def.
18736—Ervin v L A L Ins Co New
tr.
14729—Winte v Boyd Conf report
of rec.
19626—Peyton v Fields et al To
make def.
18505—Knoell v Mclnnes et al To
correct J B.
197Y8—Norwood v New England
Equitable Ins Co To make def.
19779—Same v Cas Co of Amer.
Same
19759—Gessman v Tradesmen St
Bk. To make def.
1T9&8—Dikeman v Brown To conf
sale. ' iw
4638—Overholser v Lee et nl To
quash sum.
Page 200
19287—Miller etc v Putnam et al.
To conf sale.
13420—Marke et al v Baum Bldg
Same
19723—Huey v Huey Temp all etc
12510—Cockrel v Jeffreys et al To
conf sh sale.
19930—Riddle et al v Stewart A
Wllderson To make def.
ASSIGNMENTS.
TUESDAY 4 ttottht 29
1’189—Broughton v Middleton
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 1
17744—Davis v Baker
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 2
19445—Wright v Wright
18862—Loomis v Butler
195*0—Allen v Norman
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5
19664—Brooks v C R I A P Ry C#
3836—State v Allen
9912—Bernstein v Hughes Union
Bond A Ins Co.
17252—Winans v Patterson
18017—Werner Piano Co v Vic.
Drug Co.
19*76—Wilson v Rasbury
392*—State v McGowrn
19852—Johnston ▼ Dunning et nl.
19242—Goodholm v Williams
19754—Baxter v Duke
--State v McGowan
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 6
19058—Ahrens v Ahrens
1*403—Peshek v Stmka
16*52—Rlppey v Edwards
17097—Lewis v Spears
14016—Gunness v Stever et nl
16*39—Place v Okla City Mill
Elev Ce.
17687—Burnett v Hall
18101—Crites v Pace.
18909—Lefflngwell v Ixrng
19215—Glaser Crandle Co v Wouc
Pro Co.
10221—Piedler v Piedler
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 7
19529—Witchita Mill i- El Co v
Hagaman
18530—Ramsey v Tanner
19098—Skipwith v Md Cas Co et al
16610—C E Munn Bro Co v Stlnch-
cemb et al
19535—Botts v Storm et al
16912—McCarthy v Henthern
18766—Pierro v Luther St Bk.
18858—Weems v -City Okla City.
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 8.
14037—Tegeler v Rosenbaum et al
19070—Peshek v Reed et al
18864—Union Tr Co v Broadway In
vest Co.
19668—Zumalt v Schaaf etc.
16739—Beeler Campbell Supl Co v
Hackney O A G Co
17759—City Nat Bk v Cummings
17751—Same v Same
18855—Carroll v Lawrence et al
19046—Groves v Young
19090—Williams v Fanners Nat Bk
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 9
19800—Jervey v Kaufman et al
17744—Davis v Baker
19770—Walker v Walker
18065—Fiedler et al v Baker.
18067—In re Asst of St Exch Bk.
19562— Stone v Spencer
18539—Osborn v Osborn
19569—Klein v Klein
19563— Mohri v Hite
MONDAY SEPTEMBER 11
16309—Price v Okla City Ditch A
W P Co
10795—State Life Ins Co v Epworth
University
19278—Davidson v Atwood
17634—Siefert v Gels.
17713—Model Laundry Co v Frisco
R. R Co
18154—Socher v Vrba
18372—Hemmingway
al
18750—Hardy v Fisher
18993—Cloke v R I
19152—Reeves v S Fe
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 12
17855—Taylor v Treadwell Constr
Co.
17943—Gladish v Monroe
17952—Smart v Calloway
18518—Trimple v Okla Ry Co
18669—Mattock v Fowler
18856—Burgess v N Y Life Ins Co
19013—Jones v M K A T
19200—Webster v Fitzpatrick
19738—Gentry Bowers Lbr Co v.
Smith.
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 13
19463—Hoke v Okla City
17560—Pierce v Barker et al
i7Rio—St «x rel ▼ Britton
18418—Levy Fum v Huber
18654—Leedom v Franke et al
18742—Thomas et al v Peyton el
al.
19267—Coughlin v Larimore Hdwe.
Co
19279—1st St Bk Dallas v 1st St
Bk City.
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 14
14690—Cunningham et al v Kahle
19667—Cosgrove v Sup Lodge K A
L A L
17895—State v Reed et al.
18660—Leedom v Bernstein et al
18695—Gregory * Sawyer
18722—Griswold v Meyers
18745—Meadows v Turner
19269—Ashley v Turner
18884—Albright v Ditzell
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 15
15294—Myers v Okla City
19666—Porterfield v Billings et al
17548—Cottingham v S Fe
17988—Holden v Crain
18043—Zimmerman v Lucas
19023—Mitchell v A T A S F Ry.
19292—Bailey v Naden
19482—Woodworth v Woodworth
19489—Estabrook v Carnahan
Gravel Roofing
NOTHING BUT ROOFBI
NfeW ROOFS - REPAIRING
Jas. F. Devine
Wal. 3883—Wei. Ml*
219-20 Majestic Building
F. L. KELLEY
.STENOGRAPHER A NOTAR!
Depositions, Briefs and
General work.
Phone W. 7079. Res. S401
DEPOSITIONS
MISS HAZEL DWYER
PUBLIC STENOGRAPHER
328 Amer Natl. Bk. Bld0.
NOTARY Telephone Maple 17tB
5361—Osborne v White
5114—Hamburger v White
SEPTEMBER 12
5984—E H Cox v J Harrison White
6986—Okla Detetl Serv Co v Har—
e mmernam?
bour L Co
PHONE WALNUT 4141
FD/7G£r
OFFICE 9 S Hudson
Are You Tired of Paint Troubles?
We do clean and careful work In
Painting, Paper Hanging, Decorating
FRESH PAINT AT 12.00 PER GAL.
WEATHERPROOF PAINT MFG CO.
*1-23 N. Hudson. Walnut 414.
Oklahoma Cily
NOON DAY
J. D. MANN
FLUMBNG, CAS FITTING AND
REPAIRING.
Phone W. 693 424 W. Second
Luncheon 40c
EVENING CLUB DINNERS
75c to $1.00
' EVENING t
$1.00
SUNDAY EVENING DINNERS
Callihan ei
(3816)
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County,
In District Court within and for
saiid County and State.
The Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Com-
P,any' ».c°rporation‘ Plaintiff, vs. Wil-
liam Kibble Belle Jackson Kibble, The
SiS^^5i?anaft?te a CorP°**ation.
State Bank, a corporation,
Oklahoma News Company, a corpora-
tion, John C. Adams and J. T. Fulp, De
fenaants.
The
Ribble,
been sued by the above'named
In the above entitled Court, i
she must appear and answer to the pe-
°f ‘ho Plaintiff on or before the
10th day of October. 1916. or the alle-
gations thereof will be taken as true and
judgment rendered in favor of the plain-
tiff for the sum of 111.430,08. with inter-
est from the fiirst day of August, 1916,
said defendant. Belle
will take notice that sh
plaint:
md
Jackson
ie has
lai!
at the rate of 6
decree!]
and
COUNT* COUNT
WILLIAM H. ZWICK..........Juoge
JAME8 BEATY .........Court Clerk
Phene .................Walnut 7622
The motion docket in the County
Court will bo called every sec- nd and
fourth Monday In each month.
NEW CA8E8
PLEADINGS
MOTION8 A FILINGS.
PROCEEDINGS.
PROBATE.
NEW CASES.
PROCEEDING*.
per cent per annum,
a foreclosure upon the
following described premises located and ■
COUNTY COURT ASSIGNMENTS
Oktohm*t™u!°™ C°"^'"s‘a"te of
T^‘(2rMa?n,|?rdeefVd6iit\n„„B,t°oCk
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma,
to pay said debt, interest and costs in-
cluding an attorney fee of *1,000.00.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said
Court In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, this
25th day of August, 1916.
(SEAL) JAMES BEATY
COURT CLERK
By CHAS. COLT.
DEPUTY
Welty & Orr. Attorneys for Plaintiff,
8-25 9-15
We Loan Money
On Oklahoma City Homes
Statistics Shew that more loans are
paid at maturity throunh the
monthlypayment plan than through
ctraight loans.
The cost of our loan Is the same to
you as 0% on a straight loan.
Borrow from us to
Pay off the old mortgage
Build the new house
Buy your home.
We will lorn you 60% of the cash
/alue oi* your property.
Call on us for particulars.
The Oklahoma City
Bidding and Loai|
Association
Phone Wa'nut 218.
294 Majestic Building,
*J
Hew Located 314 Security Bldg T—
Phene Wal. 43
ELLIS STEPHENSON
ABSTRACTOR.
SUCCESSOR TO OKLAHOMA ABSTRACT CO.
Bonded by Massachnssetts Bonding and l»« Co.
Our Service Phone a Co n House le W ei. 3»B • lou .nh dnaietoCWI fer
SEPTEMBER 4
5568—Rosenbaugh Grain Co v W W
Rutland
5617—Mayes v Bradley
5669—Minnie M Carpenter v Lillie
Verhine Bryan
5726--Milligan v Geo FisJi-r
5728—Fowler v Okla City Steel
Wire Works
<5781—Lyon & Taylor v Powell
Croak Amusement Co
5782— Same v Browns COD
5783— Same v H Herskowltz
5884—Same v Dean Jewelry Co
SEPTEMBER 5
5785— Lyon A Taylor v Geo Wood
5786— Same v Frank Weaver
5787— Same v W F Bender et al
5788— Same v John A Bilan
5799—Bldjs Mat Supp Co v J H.
Holmboe
5815—C C Clark v Coyle et al
6048—Lizzie Roberts v Ella Bar-
nard.
SEPTEMBER 6
5827—King v Smith
5831—Okla Elec Term Co v Frank
H Scheiner et al
5838— Jadlowski v Jadlowski
5839— Bellew v Sweet
5840— Battiste v Bruce et al
SEPTEMBER 7
5842— Royal Typewr Co v C Angel
5843— Mettie P Lan.von et al v
Peter Coleman
5854—John York v The Penn Fire
Ins Co.
5858—Lawrence Witherspoon v S F
Patrick et al
SEPTEMBER 8
6064—Margaret Browning v Grace
Boyd
5900—Jasper Sipes v School Dist.
No 70.
5*04—Scott H v A A Myers
5913—John P Martin v W A Weis
et al
5915— Geo Magafos v Gus Magafos.
5916— G T Kitchen v J S Corle
5920—W F Flippen v John Ware et
al.
6931—Wm E Myall v G D Doxie et
al.
5938— Browns C O D v New State
Brg Co
5939— R H Price et al v Same
SEPTEMBER 11
5956—W S Beaty v I) W
5963—1st St Bk v J E Weedea et
al.
5965 H—St Jo* Socy v Mark Waslk
5968— The Arco Co v W T Belt
5969— -St- Jos Socy v S Waslk
5971—Hotel KIngkade v Dr J K Cal
Ilcotte
5973—A Morrison ▼ Chas E Scheff
Recr.
5979—C C Russell v Robert Hall
5982—J E Hutto v Jacob M Dickln
ton etc.
5988—J O Galloway v Amal Oil Co
5994—Wiener Bros v Sternberg A
Barnett
5996—The Bank of Drummond v H
W Cole et al
6001— J H Dawson v H A Johnson
6002— Mary A Anderson v Ida R
Butler
6006— McCoy A Spivey v W J Har
vey
SEPTEMBER 13
6007— H L Young v J F Fisher
6009—Home Ins Co of N Y ▼.
Meade Miller
6011— Earl Burba v Jos W Lusk
et al Recrs
6012— Chas Parks v Same
6014—Jos E Phillips v Same
6016—J E Hemmingway v A M Pat
, terson
I 6017—J L Summers v J M Dickin-
son et al Recrs
6018—J C Gay v Same
6021—C B Campbell v Same
SEPTEMBER 14
6025—Harriett Billingsley v D C.
Shiver et al
6027— O E Butler v E Bracht
6028— Julia Mereness v Okla R R
Co.
6029— Skirvin Oper Co v H H Glp
son.
6030— Pleas E Nelson v Common-
wealth Ben Co.
SEPTEMBER 15
6031— Skirvin Oper Co v Geo D.
Keyesn
6032— Underwood Typewr Co v C A
Conley
6033— Nat Surety Co v W A Love
Joy et al
6036—G O Amburn v The Texas Co
60.37—W J Adams v C F Garland
6040— R L Bucy v New State Brg
Assn
6041— Rosie Gordon v Mrs W P Con
ger
SEPTEMBER 18
6042— Janies F Stochl Admr v C W
Hubycka et al
6044—N S Sherman Mach Wks V.
Wm Ward.
6046— C H Wilson et al v Roy Cogs
well et al
6052— Walter N Kuntz v Roy Cogs
well
6053— J M Condet v J C Gilmore
SEPTEMBER 19
605.7—j R Simmons v Jacob M Dic-
kinson et a> Recrs
6056—C Kessler et al v George Far
rer
60G1—Investor Pub Co v Fid Mut L.
Co.
6062— U S Tire Co v W A McKee
6063— R N Barbee v Jacob M Dli-
kinson Recr
SEPTEMBER 20
6065— J S Shriver v Ira B Ivey
6066— C B Norton v W O Harris
6069— Dr J B Knoxey v IV B Tate
6070— J W Scott v Okia City June
ton Ry Co
6071— 'McLellan Engl'sh v T J Las
ky
6072— .Tap Albright v Jacob M Dij
kinson Recr
6073— Henry & T W Rowley v same
5940—John Olson v Elmer B Stev-
ens.
6022—Tucker Furn Co v O J Briley
SEPTEMBER 21
5063—Robt L Watson v Fred Bonn
5125—Theo Maxfield v H B Lock-
ett
5876—H S Jones v McMann Oil Co
5878— Clara Wildman v Bernice
Neubauer
6026—W I Thorne v Chas T Lock-
wood et al
SEPTEMBER 22
5879— J C Thurmond v Jacob M.
Dickinson Recr
5883—John Parks v M K A T Ry.
5887—W A Smith v John B Parker.
5892—J T Sims et al v M R Gibson
NOTICE TO
f3820 >
TAKE DEPOSITIONS
No. 19164
Tn the District Court within and for
Oklahoma County, in the State of
Oklahoma.
Charles K. Austin. Plaintiff, vs.. Olive
Van Meter Austin. Defendant:
Said defendant Olive Van Meter
Austin, will take notice that on Wed-
nesday the 20th day of September. 191*.
the plaintiff above named will take
the depositions of sundry witnesses to
bo used as evidence In the trial of the
re
lee of Jos-
at No 2710 Strong
above entitled cause In the above etl.
titled court, at the law off!
eph L. Lendrey Esq.. _
Avenue in the City of Kansas City,
In Wyandotte County. State of Kansas
between the hours of eight o’clock In
the forenoon and nix o’clock in the
afternoon of said day. and that the
taking or the same will be adjourned
and continued from day to day at the
same time and place until they in
completed.
CHARLES E. AUSTIN
Plaintiff.
Chambers 4 Priest. Attorneys for Plain
tiff. 3-38 9-19
<33*4>
NOTICE TO CREDITORS
Na. 9437
of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Cunty.
Margaret Kills De-
State
ss.
Te the Creditors of
ceased.
All persons having claims against
Margaret mils, deceased, are required
to present the same with the accessary
vouchers, to the undersigned admfnlstm
— at Arcadia. Oklahoma, ta C. T. As-
burv within four months of the Sats
hereof or the same will be forever bar-
Daled this 22nd dnv of Aurttst. 1914.
C. T A9BTTRT
Administrates.
*-» 9-3
If It’s For Your Office Go to Manly’s,” 210 West First St. Phone Walnut 125
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Murphy, John H. The Daily Legal News (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Vol. 12, No. 309, Ed. 1 Thursday, August 31, 1916, newspaper, August 31, 1916; (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc1136362/m1/1/: accessed June 23, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.