Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-11-13
THE COURTS.

CIRCUIT COURT, Chief Justice Cartter-Ap-
peal Docset was called, and he first case for
trial was Thompson vs.. Walton. Drury and
Davioge asked for 8 continuance.
Nolan VS. Kirby Muxzy and N5rris-this
was an appeal from magistrate Judgment;
case Of misunderstanding about the construc-
bet arose--a hat was bet-parsy that lost said
ne didn't lose, and sued for the price OF the
hat Judgment .s
Appeal from Judgment OF Oenit below, Bar
naclo, J. p. Mr.. Norris moved that the appeal
be dis missed, as the Court had no jurisdiction
In cases under $40, by stat. Also. rs against
public policy; II is an action not to recover
back debt but to enforce gambling debt
Judgment reversed, subject to being stricken
out, prov ided Court has no jurisdiction.
Henson vs.. Posey; appeal from Justices
Judgment CLARK and Lloyd. Jury called and
ten answered TO their names, two others, Fran
els Hanna and Rhody O'Brien being sum.
moned by the Marshal, jury was made mp,
sworn and case made to them. Witnesses
for q verdict OF 1875. jury retired. and on
returning gave a verdict for appellee, sustain
ing amount Of judgment rendered below.
Next case, Clark Mills VS.. Arthur de wetz-
appellee, came up on appeal from decision of
Justice Walter in case of rent Of stable back
of Blagden's Row. Witnesses were examined,
and the Court gave judgment Tor appellee of
s3 per month tor three and one half months
He said here is q case OF two gentlemen, both
of whom are men OF integrity, in my judy
ment, neither OF whom recollect the agree.
and decide according to the equ ity of the case,
ter this thing is regulated very much by the
necessities OF the case, the supply and demand.
Coart here announced that he could not 70
on to-day with calling the calendar regularly,
but would endeavor TO resume in the morn
ing.
Case of Cant vs. Gibson and Knight. Fen.
dali and Hine. This case arose on the ques-
ton Of when the W ages of men on the Potomac
fisheries commenced, whether from the time
they reach the shore, or when the seine is first
cast. Appellant pleaded the general custom.
Defence, by Mr.. Hine, pleaded a special parol
contract, and even il nota contract the custom
was unreasonable, and not to be followed as
law. The witnesses i'd the case were then
sworn and the testimony taken. The case was
tried by Court.
EQUITY CoURT-Ju,tice Wulie.-Folowing
orders and decrees:-Todd VS.. Mailman
Power VS.. Power; final ratification OF trustee
sale. Riggs VS.. Smith; final ratification OF
trustees sale. Sonnerschmidt VS. Fugitt ct al
Pro confesso vs.. nonresident; defendants and
reference to auditor. Ballenger VS.. Ballenger,
appointing A. Lloyd trustee 10 sell real prop.
erty. Mcdonald vs. Prather. reference to
We. Dalton; final ratification Of trustees sale
Purdy VS.. Surrall ct al; final ratif cation trus-
tees sale. Holton VS.. Sohl; requiring the COM
plainant 10 pay costs of amendment bill Lee
VS.. Rapley, ct al; appointing Geo. +. Appleby
guardian I'D htem
vii Gerecke VS.. Anna Gerecke, divorce a
rincUt0 7nGtrimOHi; pro coDfesso Reginald Fem
dali, solicitor for petitioner, applied for on the
ground Of adultury. The petition recites that
The parties were married in 1863 lived together
until about year ago, since which time peti.
toner has been confined 10 his bed and unable
To assist himself The paranour was the clerk
in the store OF the husband W no was bed ridden.
On the ID March this pair were arrested on
the charge OF adultery and fornicatIoc. She
admitted frequent acts of Illicit intercourse
with said clerk. The husband offered forgive.
Eess ana silence If she wonId return, but she
declined. and went away and took $3.50
and lett him no food. medicine. furniture,
or fuel and moreover threatened him with q
tnrashiDg as q farewell, but she pItied his
helpless condition. The guilty parties are now
said TO be living as husband and wife in Phila-
celpEia, and the husband is Impoverished by
the action of her who was once his wife. De.
cree OF divorce UipcUio mdtrimOHii.
Mansell VS.. Mansell; Pro c0nfeSSa as to ] ohm
ard Joanna Mansell, and reference to exam.
iner. Carusi 10 take testimony. Feally VS..
FPaIly; final ratification of trustees sale Null
lowney VS.. Mullowney: discharging rule to
show cause
Yesterday a decree was made divorcing
with David y. Cox. The petitioner states that
she was married in this city on the 10Th OF
January, 1867, but in May last her husband
deserted her. and during the marriage he
contributed but little towards her support:
that he was dessolute ana very irregular in
bis habits. She charges that he committed
adultery in February last at Maggie MurphY's,
or Thirteenth street. The testimony was taken
by T. F. Brown, examiner, and cOrroborated
the allegations OF petitioner. Mr.. IL. Thomp-
son appeared Tor petitioner.