ustxtxb_obs_1956_12_26_50_00003-00000_000.pdf

Workers Fired Mrs. Harris says that nothing was said when she and the other workers arrived late, and that they were never officially notified of the penalty. She and Mrs. Lytle explained: “One of the night supervisors came to me and told me, ‘I’ve been doing some snooping and found your pay sheets have been pulled. There might be something to this rumor you, are going to get a pay decrease.’ I told her that was silly, I don’t believe they’ll do anything like that,” Mrs. Lytle recalled. But when the paychecks were issued, said Mrs. Harris, “I was cut from $175 to $165, Mrs. Lytle from $175 to $165, and Mrs. Robertson from $165 to $155.” Mrs. Harris said that she and the other women told their supervisore why they’d been tardy to the Title Insurance Rates Are Hit \(Continued gain with the industry for lower rates in mass housing developments. “A builder and a seller of 500 houses in a single chain of title must pay 500 times for title insurance, even though the same title is being covered by all the policies.” When a home buyer wants to protect himself as well as the mortgagee, he can get an “own -er’s policy, protecting him against loss of his equity. The charge for this is $15. “The $15 charge is for the issuance of what amounts to a duplicate policy,” said Terrell. The 1.954 increase in rates of 3 percent was “more than four times the average annual loss ratio for the past ten years.” To correct these situations, Terrell proposed: Make title policies transferable for a nominal fee; permit builders to negotiate with title firms for volume rates for housing developments; reduce the owner’s policy charge to $7.50 at the most; revoke the 1954 increase and consider further rate cuts. THE MORTGAGE BANKERS have also crossed lances with the title industry. Effective May 1, 1956, the Insurance Commission authorized title companies to charge $15 to endorse the transferee of a loan as the named assured in the policy. In an alarmed letter to the members of the Texas Mortgage Bankers Assn., Ames L. Gill, the association president, said that “a matter of extreme importance” had come up. “The reason that it is so important lies in the fact,” he said, “that it will increase our cost of doing business very substantially, and in the opinion of our Board of Directors is a cost that cannot be passed on.” Investors don’t need the endorsement the commissi o n okayed, Gill wrote, because the policy stipulates that it insures the original mortgagee and “successors or assigns.” Nevertheless, they will obtain it if it is available, he said. It wouldn’t help the mortgage bankers, said Gill-and he added most pointedly, “and there is no evidence that the title industry needs additional income at this time.” Gill sent a legal opinion along backing him up. Challenged by the mortgage bankers, the commission suspended the authorization a n d called a hearing. But both home builders and mortgage bankers had learned, through their associations, that the title insurance industry gets along pretty well with the Insurance Commission. meeting, but that didn’t help any. She said they tried to see Hoerster about the matter but were told “he was out.” So, they called to See if the Labor Board could help, and shortly thereafter, Hoerster called them in for a discussion of the matter. MRS. HARRIS quoted Hoerster as accusing her of “being very disloyal to the hospital” and one of the “only ones who ever went outside for help.” She said, “I told him I didn’t think it was fair to be docked that way for being five minutes late.” The women said that Hoerster discussed the matter with each of them, individually, and recorded CLASSIFIED NOTICE is given of the INTENTION TO INCORPORATE under the laws of Texas the undersigned business firm, presently a partnership, with its office at 1122 East Hobston Street, San Antonio, Texas. CITY CARBONIC CO. By H. H. PIEHL EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE available. Sell liquid fertilizer to farmers, full or spare time. Liberal profits, free local advertising. No investment, no experience required. Write “Na-Churl” Plant Food Co., 300 Monroe St., Marion, Ohio. DEALER WANTED. 200 home necessitiesMedicines, Vitamins, Spices, Foods, Toiletries, etc., well known in Part Austin or Bastrop County. For particulars see 0. V. Loney R 7, Box 153M Austin or write Rawleigh’s Dept. TXJ-1771 142, Memphis, Tenn. LEGALS CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Cecil Humphries, Defendant, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: You are hereby commanded to appear before the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse of said county in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, at or before 10 o’clock A. M. of the first Monday after the expiration of 42 days from the date of issuance hereof; that is to say, at or before 10 o’clock A.M. of Monday the 4th day of February, 1957, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 105,755, in which Edna Humphries is Plaintiff and Cecil Humphries is defendant, filed in said Court on the 17th day of December, 1956, and the nature of which said suit is as follows: Being an action and prayer for judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for decree of divorce dissolving the bonds. of matrimony heretofore and now existing between said parties; Plaintiff alleges cruel treatment on the part of Defendant towards her of such a nature as to render their further living together as husband and wife altogether insupportable; Plaintiff further alleges that no children were born of said union and no community property accumulated; Plaintiff further prays for relief, general and special; All of which more fully appears from Plaintiff’s Original Petition on file in this office; and to which reference is here made for all intents and purposes; If this citation is not served within 90 days after date of its issuance, it shall be returned unserved. Witness, 0. T. Martin, Jr., Clerk of the District Courts of Travis County, Texas. Issued and given under my hand and the seal of said, Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 17th day of December, 1956. 0. T. MARTIN, JR., Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By GEO. W. BICKLER, Deputy SHERIFF’S SALE BY VIRTUE of a certain Order of Sale issued by the Clerk of the 98th District Court of Travis County, Texas, on the 13th day of December, 1956, in a certain Cause No. 104,379, wherein E. J. Villavaso and Ethel R. Villavaso, are Plaintiffs and Hazel Bounds, is Defendant, in favor of the said Plaintiffs for the sum of Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirtylars, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percentum per annum from the 23rd day of November, 1956, together with all costs of suit, that being the amount of a judgment recovered by the said E. J. Villavaso and Ethel R. Villavaso, Plaintiffs, in the 98th District Court of Travis County, on the 23rd day of November, 1956. I, on the 13th day of December the conversations. He “asked me five different times, ‘don’t you think I was right and you were wrong’,” said Mrs. Harris. She said she never became convinced he was right and told him so. Following the session with Hoerster, all three of the women were “dismissed for lack of cooperation with the training program and ability to adjust to the training program.” Hoerster told the Observer that the pay cuts simply amount to paying a worker what he’s worth. “An employee who observes the rules and regulations is worth more than one who doesn’t,” he explained. He pointed out that if he wished he could “discharge workers who violate regulations. I just demote them and give them a chance to work back up,” he said. The superintendent added that he wasn’t taking such action just to “cause the workers trouble. It is the best way I know to see that the rules are followed, and all of the regulations are for the patient-he is the king here.” MRS. LYTLE said that she and the other two women first protested to 0. L. Stiefer, chief deputy of the State Labor Board of Statistics. He is of the opinion that Hoerster had the legal right to discharge the workers but that he couldn’t cut their pay without legal notification. All three signed complaints before it was decided that the labor board did not have jurisdiction over cases involving state workers. The three women then went before a justice of peace to file a claim in small claims court, but cause, together with interest, penalties and costs of suit, and the proceeds of said sale to be applied to the satisfaction thereof, and the remainder, if any, to be applied as the law directs. DATED at Austin, Texas, this the 13th day of December, 1956. T. 0. LANG, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas By HENRY KLUGE, Deputy NOTICE OF SALE THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS BY VIRTUE of an order of sale dated and issued pursuant to a judgment decree of the 53rd Judiical District Court of Travis County, Texas, by the Clerk of said Court on said date in a certain suit, No. 101,665, styl6d City of Austin vs. Lillie Green, et al, and to me directed and delivered as Sheriff of said County, I have on December 6, 1956, at 2:53 P.M., levied upon, and will on the First Tuesday in February, 1957, the same being the 5th day of said month, at the Courthouse door of said County, in the City of Austin between the hours of 10 o’clock A.M. and 4 o’clock P.M. on said day, proceed to sell for cash to the highest bidder all the right, title and interest of the defendants in such suit in and to the following dsecribed real estate levied upon as the property of said defendants, the same lying and being situated in the County of Travis and the State of Texas, to wit: All that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Travis, State of Texas, described as folby one-hundred Forty-eight Feet Subdivision of Outlot number of the Outlots adjoining the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas according to the map or plat of said Subdivision recorded in Volume 1, page 34, of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas; and being the same property that was conveyed to B. Martin and D. W. Martin by William Bruggerhoff by deed dated January 10, 1898, recorded in Volume 153 page 77, of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas. or upon .the written request of said defendants or their attorney, a sufficient portion thereof to Satisfy said judgment, interest, penalties and costs, subject, however, to the right of redemption, of the defendants or any person having an interest therein, to redeem the said property, or their interest, therein, at any time within two years from the date of sale in the manner provided by law, and subject to any other and further rights to which the defendants or anyone interested therein may be entitled, under the provisions of law. Said sale to be made by me to satisfy the judgment rendered in the above styled and numbered cause, together with interest, penalties and costs of suit, and the proceeds of said sale to be applied to the satisfaction thereof, and the remainder, if any, to be applied as the law directs. Dated at Austin, Texas, this the 14th day of December, 1956. T. 0. LANG, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas By HENRY KLUGE, Deputy NOTICE OF SALE THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS BY VIRTUE of an order of sale dated and issued pursuant to a judgment decree of the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, by the Clerk of said Court on said date in a certain suit, No. 101,636, styled City of Austin vs. Malty Mason, et al, and to me directed and delivered as Sheriff of said County, I have on. December 6, 1956, at 2:53 P.M., levied upon, and will, on the First Tuesday in February, 1957, the same being the 5th day of I said month, at the Courthouse the judge advised them that “we couldn’t file suit against the government without permission of the legislature.” Mrs. Lytle explained that they next went to State Representative Obie Jones, who advised them to take their complaint before the legislative committee which will study appropriations for state hospitals and special schools. “He told us the committee would be glad to consider this and any other information we would care to report about the hospital operations,” Mrs. Lytle said. She indicated she also intends to bring up the matter of elderly patients being attacked by younger ones believes is a result of the assignment of only one night watch to supervise two wards at night. B.B. door of said County, in the City of Austin between the hours of 10 o’clock A.M. and 4 o’clock P.M. on said day, proceed to sell for cash to the highest bidder all the right, title and interest of the defendants in such suit in and to to following described real setate levied upon as the property of said defendants, the same lying and being situated in the County of Travis and the State of Texas, to wit: All that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Travis, State of Texas described as foldivision of parts of Outlots Eight the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to the map or plat of said Subdivision recorded in Plat book 3, page 17, Plat Records of Travis County, Texas; and being the same property conveyed to Molty Mason by A. J. Eilers by Deed dated October 10, 1922, and recorded in Volume 340, page 288, Deed Records of Travis County, Texas. or upon the written request of said defendants or their attorney, a sufficient portion thereof to satisfy said judgment, interest, penalties and costs, subject, however, to the right of redemption, of the defendants or any person having an interest therein, to redeem the said property, or their interest, therein, at any tlme within two years from the date of sale in the manner provided by law, and subject to any other and further rights to which the defendants or anyone interest therein may be entitled, under the purovisions of law. Said sale to be made by me to satisfy the judgment rendered in the above styled and numbered cause, to