Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1866-03-21
- a : -; 80 . y 800. 90;

feredI IN evidence; objected to by plaintiff scoun-
sel, but allowed 10 be read, and TIE question OF
objection reserved.
koben q. Brinkiy, Amos Woodrum Capt g..
p. Church.. l.. ". Dixon, and Capt Miller. were
examined IS witnesseS. showing mat Mt. Brink
ley had never belonged 70 the Committee 81
Safety. and that he had nothing % 90 Win me
8 izure ofthe boats OF plaintiff; that Mr.. Wood
ruiz was a member OF the Committee nul uiu
not go on beard Of plaintiff boats or haveany-
/ Thing TO do with their seizure; utatr Atlne va
President Of tie Committee, and that the 1om-
/ mittee held meetings in the titus block. on
| jefferson street. Capt Church tesnhed tnal ne
uraa 4 me- har rf The committee and that lie
went with plaintif and Capt Lee 10 Ar iitue'
who said thar the Committee We're not m the
habit Of stopping boats; that they had better -
aud see zen. Pillow, which they did Gen. Fll-
low said ha had gwen orders 70 allow no boats
20 pass mis- batteries a. lots hAttla hAllueiPh
and &C Wulfnver. The witness then went ON
20 state that The object OF the COMMITTEES was
not 10 stop boats, but % prevent disorderly per-
sons and MODS from opping thefn that ne
had aseisfeI in releasing boats iu a number Of
instances from the hands OF the people who
stopped them which was objected 70 by plain
NJ. DiEonStestimony described the interview
al Gen. Pillow s headquarters between Gen. Pill
low and Cap Church. Capt Miller was "a cap
tain or arusefN- acting under orders from Gen.
Pillow. which were % bring to every boat which
passed on the river: did not remember the
names OF the plaintiffs boats, nor OF having
made Them land: did not 90 ON board OF them:
supposed be had brought them 20, for his orders
were not 70 let any boat pass without a permit
lNa A."AH 7
Mr.. Halstead was sworn: Was one OF the
original defendants IA this suit and a memhe
0fthe Committee Of Safety in NAV. 1851. Had
nothing 70 do with the seizure OF the boats OF
plaintiff Did not know Of it 't0l sometime
The matter was never before the
Committee, 20 bis knowledge. the Wines was
iuttrr0gated as 70 the object OF the
safety. The testimony was again Objected
70 bl plainfius counsel. because the defendants
were not sued a. a Committee, but IN tneir IN
ulfldual capacity, and the object or purpose or
tne had nothing 70 DO With the tres
pass Charged against the defendants. The oh
Iaction. after argument, waSSustalneu, aud that
portion OF the evidence drawn out by defend
ants counsel as 10 the object Of Committee,
The testimony OF defendant, F. Titus, wa Of
fered aud the witness Sworu-nOt Tor himself
JuI % represent defendant, Erinkley. Here The
for the plaintiff stated that the case
would not be pressed farther, as 20 Mr.. Brink
aud asked THAT the bin might be dismissed
OF alloWiug tie case TO 20 on 10 heIury, who
could return verdict Of not guilty as 10 the
defendant. Rriukley, which was done. and the
examination Of SIR. Titus waived.
Court adjourned 90 10 O'Clock this morning
The ease viii be- continued to-day. as there are
5ther wituesse7 10 be examined on behalf Of the
defendants.
CuBuaaI Court case Of state -. Rob
su WsuIIow, application for bail. was conclu-
LED yesterday, and the defendant admitted 10
bail ga the sum OF s2500, with Robert T. Chureh
md Hannibal Carter as securitles-