Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1866-04-03

of u Master who is in Heaven.
And may the Supreme Grand Arch
tect Of the Universe ever have YOU IN
bis holy keeping. MAY brotherly lov,
prevail, and every moral and social viz
tue cement you in the bonds OF peac,
and fellowship.
DAVID RAMSAY,
Grand Master OF Masons.
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE-Uaifed State.
Circuit and District GUrte.-Fhe courr
pronounced its decision in the case o
Richmond vs.. Clary, argued on Friday
as follows:
The court regrets not being able q
grant the relief prayed for in the bill Of
plaintiff. IL is certainly a hardship for
him 10 he kept out of the use and enjoy
ment Of the property by the military au,
thorities.
The bill states that this property was
leased by plaintiff from the city Of Mem
phis, and is known as the maynard. In
1852 the United States forces took posses
sion of the property, and the military
authorities appropriated il 10 their use.
1t was doubtless Of great service TO the
army, and was used extensively. As Il
the legality Of the seizure by the mill
tary, the court viii not consider that
seizure unlawful. It was right and
proper, and this court could not and would
not have iuterfered to pronounce &c lille
gal or to relieve the plaiRtif at that time.
But the deputy quarter aster has gone
on and continued to hold it, and, as i
alleged in the bill, although the var Is
over, holds it unnecessarily, and without
the consent, and in violation Of the rights
of plaintiff. The bill says this holding
IS a cloud upon the title of plaintiff, but
il does not show such a title as viii en-
able the court 10 declare the adverse pos
session a cloud thereon. 1t is only a pos
seseDrv right, and possession is one of the
eleAnants of title. So that the only
ground on which the court could enter
tain tile bill, the title Of the plaintiff is
not shown.
There il, therefore, no ground for the
court to entertain the motion on the ale
cations of the bill. The remedy of the
plaintiff at law is perfect. He can bring
an action Of trespass against the officer
who holds the property without neces-
Sly, and have the possession Of the
property restored 10 him. Although the
officer may have had lawful possession,
if he now holds Unnecessarily he is a
trespasser.
The court cannot, therefore, entertain
the cause as a court Of chancery, for the
plaintiff has It in his power to recover
possession at law, 10y an action Of tres
pass, and the application for an injunc-
ton must therefore be refused, although
ii Is a matter Of regret to the court that
il cannot interfere to restore to the
plaintiff his rights, in this form Of ac-
ton.
As to the question whether the war is
at an end, and whether peace exists in
the country, the consideration OF the
question does not enter into this de-
cision.
The court could determine the eharac-
ter of the war, but whether the war has
in fact ended is another question, which
the court is not prepared 70 decide in the
absence Of any proclamation or official
action ON the part of the general Gov
eminent.
Soldiers and portions Of the army
are still to be seen i'm the different
parts of the country. What they are
kept here for is not for this court 10 de
teTminc, even If these questions had
arisen In the determination and decision
Of this cause
The court granted q continuance in the
ease OF Moore VS.. Hicks, on the affidavit
Of complainant. The following rules Of
court were ordered to be entered, 70 take
effect after the present term Of the court :
Ordered, That hereafter, in all appli- I
for the continuance Of causes on
account Of the absence of a witness or
witnesses, the party making the same
shall disclose, by his affidavit, what he
70 prove by such absent witness,
ana shall also state that he cannot prove
he same facts 10y any other witness. No
party shall be allowed 30 continue a
cause more than once, except upon the
condition cf paying all The costs of the
cause not before adiudged.
Ordered, That where cause are set for
rial or hearing on any particular day,
and, for any reason, are not taken up for
rial or hearing ON the day set, they shall
all back 10 their regular places on the
to be again set Tor a particular
a. counsel may agree, under the di-
Of the Court, or to be tried in
heir order on the docket.
The case OF Park VS.. Hamilton will
,Fobably be tried on Monday.
Common Lar C0urt.-The trial Of
in their regular order commenced
IN yesterday.
The following causes were set for trial
or Monday and to-day:
M0NDAy, APaIL ?, lSG.
J.. r s. Laski We. W. ". Gailair.
2 A. MOremun vs.. h. p. Redmond.
3. A. seessell ". thas- &. Gray.
&. J. II. MerriWeather vs. W. r. Brown.
3. X. Gornan " James McGrath.
o. Lucy p james, Administrators, etc, vs.
s. Lacy p. james, Administrator, etc, vs..
Francis FfuueL
3. James Byrd " Francis PIlueL
lb. y. Perry & Ross vs.. A. Mcdonald.
%. Ms. Duucau VS. j. D. layton.
-. Joseph Frey ys. Francis PlllneL.
lA. W. b Graves vs.. Esam Jones
~. James n. Brooks vs.. Abner G. Wiibourne.
i6- j. M. Woodwars ~. p. ii. Hammsrskeld.
~. Charles q. Bobo Us. Fee a Lambert.
IS Mrs. Mary Harris EKecutriX, vs. James
Mickersham, administrator
%. ). a. HoIorau vs.. ID. n. 6rosveuor,
.. }. b. AISLE vs.. e 8 ar n Company,
-. a. d. Farmer vs. Hinton, galloway & Co,
p a. y. r. r. Co. vs. VI. laele.
81 n. K. Howard vs. II. =. = Williams
- 81. a. Horton yE. Mrs 81 +. Fitzgerald.
y ~ A. Higgs IS 7 Robinson
%. A. 3. wheeler. de bo7tS non, vs.. j. + FeltS-
q. siovaI & Mitchell VS a. H. Hise.
=. James Maydwen vs.. W. r. Greenlaw.
y. HanTy G. Wilkes vs.. p. Reed a H. W. Bry-
80. e. stilman 4 Go. vs.. q. KeRhoIz and wife,
81. J. NJ. shaw 81. NJ. J. Davie.
TUESDAY,
M Jno. A. Gwynn w. p. H.. Patterson.
j. j. H. nllamA 10 " a = lAaucoie anu
IS. d. Ball.
D. y. Rocket W. Gray.
81. WOOD, Abbott A. Co. vs. D.. Council and ".
g. JOIN b hester gs. H Al. Grosysnor, ad-
miuisirator.
81. Paul CicaiIi W.. Jas. Brown and II. Brazel
Is. 4. &. R0dgsrB -. ~ b s. Williams :
81 e. 4. Churchilf vs.. Bridget O'bOnnelL
80. Nanderpo0l g saith VI. Miller q fimm-
a. same ". same.
a. Same VS. same.
a. Peoria NJ. a r. ms. Co. vs.. Samuel Put =
nam.
g. Mary J. Piltman, administrairiK, Vs. n.
d. X. E. Co.
a. ols4k uavlsvs IS. j. SiailrY. (
g. J. j Worahau rs. hfups tNFiiHs 4
t4 IaNipr = Hpddcu EA 10 3. Holmes.
gL Henry q. smith vs. Jno. D. Armour
b. i H. Peter Co. Va =. n. Rail.
t- Augusta Factory vs. AT wells. !
- 81 Hialley Va. A. 5. Montgomery.
LogtsEllloa ana Memphis Mail Company vs. z
Hugh Horne c. al d
,. Robert D. Caldwell Va h. b. Canon a Oo.
~ j. b Cook -. VS. Hlippin.
o. CHRISTIAN PEPPER rs. thamague q Cart
wright. q
Fl 81. Miller ~. =. BaDnon et al ;
81. Mm. smith Vs. Ryan q O1sulIvan. d
% g G. vs.. g. hinls4 aud E. b. Pickett.
- = NJ. Munroe Ms. DuXai. AigeF A tg- Vi
o. ~ 4. k.A r. 90. VS.. j. h II. War. u
o. Hopeiand, Edwards A Co. rs. George r. /,
broWei. I