ustxtxb_obs_1959_05_30_50_00007-00000_000.pdf

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 13th day of May, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By G. W. BICKLER, Deputy. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Dean Richard Geitner, 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 Monday after the expiratkon. of 42 days from the date of issuance hereof; that is to say, at or before, 10 o’clock A. M. of Monday the 15th day of June, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 113,891, in which Doris Richard Geitner is defendant, filed in said Court onthe 30th day of April, 1959, 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 dissolving the bonds of matrimony h e r e t o f ore and now existing between. the said parties; Plaintiff alleges cruel treatment on the part of Defendant towards her of such a nature as to render thier further living together as husband and wife altogether insupportable; Plaintiff further alleges that no children were born as issue of said marriage and no community property was accumulated by the parties; Plaintiff further alleges that her maiden name was Doris E. Holliday, which she wants restored to her, and for which she prays judgment; Plaintiff further prays for relief, 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; 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 seal of said Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 30th day of April, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By G. W. BICKLER, Deputy. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO T. George Miller, 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 Couty, 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 15 day of June, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 113,283, in which Florence Catherine Miller is Plaintiff and T. George Miller is defendant, filed in. said Court on the 6th day of March, 1959, 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 nature as to render their further living together as man and wife altogether insupportable; Plaintiff further alleges that no community property was accumulated during said said marriage; that one child was born of said union, that Plaintiff should be awarded its care, custody and control and that defendant should be required to contribute the sum of $50.00 per month toward the ‘support of said child until it reaches the age of 18 years; and for which Plaintiff ‘prays judgment; 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; If this citation is not served within 90 days after date of its issuance, it shall be returned unserved. WITNESS, 0. T. MARTIN, JR., Clerkof the District Courts of Travis Couty, Texas. Issued and given under my hand and the seal of said Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 27th day of April, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By G. W. BICKLER, Deputy. Over $ 1 20 Million twe Insurance In Force INSURANCE COMPANY Box 8098 Houston, Texas Take That! Sirs: After absorbing Franklin Jones’s intriguing article, “Tour At A Trot,” published in your edition of May 9, I am inclined to wonder whether Senator Yarborough is not better suited to conduct guided tours through the Capitol than to be a senator … It seems that he thinks more of showing constituents the town than working on needed legislation. No wonder he has to work far /into the night doing research on Senate billshe and his constituents are so busy soaking up culture during regular working hours he is forced to burn the candle till the wee small hours of the morning to keep pace with his Senate colleagues Our hard-working statesman, although he is very informed concerning painting and sculpture, had best leave the guided tours to his press agents and government guidesthat is if he wants to sleep at night. Henry W. Thrower, Jr., 907 Poplar, Austin. Mrs. Moody Replies Sirs: Two letters in your May Law Says Tests Must Be Offered AUSTIN The Department of Public Safety was flipped to the mat of the law, and drivers whose licenses the department wants to suspend were held to be entitled to licenses if they pass a re-examination, in an important Attorney General’s opinion. Homer Garrison, director of D. P. S., wrote Atty. Gpn. Will Wilson saying that a law case seemed to prohibit the department from “ever refusing to renew a license if the applicant can successfully pass the prescribed examination.” Wilson has ruled that this is exactly what the case, D. P. S. vs. Azar, does do. Garrison’s question: “Does the D. P. S. have authority to deny a hearing when the licensee has an accumulation of numerous incidents of traffic law violations recorded on his driving record?” Wilson’s answer: “… the courts will not consider an applicant’s past record, standing alone, as sufficient grounds … This attitude leaves out completely the well known fact, of which we may take judicial knowledge, that people reform . t .” “In our opinion, upon appeal it must be shown that the Department afforded each applicant an opportunity for re-examination before a reissuance request is done, the department’s refusal to reissue will be held to is denied; and that unless such be arbitrary and capricious … “If the examination is passed, the department would be guilty of an arbitrary and capricious action if it refused reissuance \(of Wilson’s opinion, prepared by Tom McFarling and Leon. Pasek, added a final back-of-the-brief to Garrison’s department. The lawyers had noticed letters from D. P. S. informing applicants of denial and the fact they cannot run a car without a valid license. “In our opinion,” said the Atty. Gen.’s office, “an additional paragraph on such letters fully stating the applicant’s right to take a re-examination would be sufficient notice of such fact.” 9th issue signed Cooper and Leonard, answering my letter on L. B. J., were most amusing to me”none so blind as those who will not see!” Everyone in Texas \(save those all of Texas knows that Lyndon Johnson went into the U. S. Senate by 87 belated and highly questionable votes! My husband was the man who kept L. B. J.’s name off the ballot in every lower Court \(by injunction beMoody was the man who took the case to the highest court \(on his own, because he, believes in a New-Dealing friend of Lyndon’s quietly quashed the motion never allowing it to go before the top court!! That, Mr. Cooper, is how Lyndon won at the polls . Johnson was being beat at the polls, and his cohorts appealed to the “Duke of Duval,” after the polls closed … enough to give poor Lyndon that 87 vote lead!!! Dan Moodyserved with honor in the Governorship, the only office he ever wanted, in Texas. There was never a breath of scandal or question of integrity linked with his name … Dan Moody went into office a poor man, and came out vastly poorer \(because of a thriving law pracbecause there was a great cry for that race .’.. These dear blind followers of Lyndon are wrongI do not hate Lyndon JohnsonI feel sorry for him, because he is consumed by his ambition to be President, that every act is so motivated by this desireand he falls so tragically short of being the Great Man he thinks he is! A crafty and able politician, yes! A ruthless dictator in the Senate and the T. V. Fieldbut presidential timber God forbid!! Mildred Paxton Moody \(Mrs. l 1 SINGER 1 Sewing Machine IMahogany Cabinet Full set of attachments 1 including buttonholer GUARANTEED Take up weekly payments $1.55 OR Pay full balance of only $29.75 WILL DELIVER Greenwood 3-4479 York Sewing Center Pasadena Numpimmommosimammeamommiluia LEGALS CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO John Henry Van Amerongen 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 6th day foJuly, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 114,125, in which Joan Van Amerongen is Plaintiff and John Henry Van Amerongen is defendant, filed in said Court on the 21st day of May, 1959, 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 nature as to render their further living together as husband and wife altogether insupportable; Plaintiff further alleges that one child, born of said union, is now with plaintiff, who is the proper person to be awarded its care, custody and control and for which Plaintiff prays judgment; Plaintiff further alleges that no community property was acquired by the parties; 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 lal 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 21st day of May, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By GEO. W. BICKLER, Deputy CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS To Lorane Atwell Williams 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 be-, fore 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 29th day of June, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 112,326, in which Marguerite Connell Williams is Plaintiff and Lorane Atwell Williams is defendant, filed in said Court on the 1st day of December, 1958, 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