and East half of south East quarter of sec 6, South half of section
3,4 & 5 all of sections 8,9 & 10 in Township 9 south of Range 20
East, and from trespassing upon the same or any part thereof,
and from removing any logs therefrom, and from boxing or scraping
any of the trees growing thereon for the purpose of making Turpentine
and from removing any turpentine therefrom,
and it is further ordered adjudged and decreed that the defendants
do pay the costs of this proceeding to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court
and that execution do issue therefor. Done and ordered at Cham
bers at Ocala Florida on this 17th day of February AD 1899
                                       W.A. Hocker
Filed February 18th 1899                      Judge
Recorded March 1st 1899
                  H.C. Denton Clerk
                  per E.C. Wimberly DC

                 In the Circuit Court 5th Judicial Circuit
                of the State of Florida    In Chancery
Catherine Jones        }
        vs             }
Charles W. White Et al }
               This cause came on to be heard before me on
the 10th Feby AD 1899 on the motion of defendant C.W. White
by his Solicitor for final hearing on the Bill Answer & other
pleadings, and also on the motion of complainant by B.A. Thrash
er her Solr for extension of time to take testimony & for the ap
pointment of a Master &c. The Solicitor of defendant C.W.
White, resists the motion to extend the time for taking tes
timony and appointment of a Master, The defendant Jones
the husband of Complainant by his solicitor does not object
to the Complainants motion, but as his answer practically
admits the allegations of the Bill as amended there does
not seem to be any need for testimony as to him. The Bill
was filed on the 6th Sept 1893, and after various amendments
thereto, and other proceedings a replication to answer was
filed August 1st 1898, no application for appointment of a Mas
ter has been made until now, and the only explanation of the
delay is contained in the affidavit of Mr C.L. Fildes the then
solicitor for complainant, the first question to be determined is
does this explanation furnish a reasonable ground for extend
ing the time, the defendant White certainly has a right to
have the cause heard without unnecessary delay. I do not
think the affidavit comes up to The Rule, and the motion
to extend the time and to appoint a Master is denied
Taking up the motion of defendant C.W. White for final hear
ing - and now after careful consideration of the Bill with
its amendments & other pleadings I am of opinion that the