Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-10
THE COURTS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT AND CIR
CUT CoURTs-HoR. CORaoUy +. 1figg,
presidiRg.-J0ha Johnston, Esq was
admitted 10 practice in this court ytster-
day.
In the case Of Aing vs.. steamboat
Euclair, an order pro cOpfeaso was Is
sued.
Owing to an omission in the copying
OF s bond upon which was founded the
plaintiffs evidence in the case Of the
United States vs.. Galsn E. Green ct ST.,
the plaintiff took q nOn-suit, and leave
was granted to amend the declaration.
The following s8ses were dismissed;
FernhaTd VS.. Elson Bros. Moses VS..
Levy u Co.; No. l40, district docket,
United States vs.. r. n. Perry, and No.
l6S district docket.
In case No. 107, an order was issued
that defendant, John q. Mohrstadt, per-
sOnally appear in court on Monday next,
to show cause Why sn sUtsehlaens shall
act be issued against him for not COM
plying Yith an order Of eoNrt.
The following cases, or the law docket,
are set for ~peIeaptoTy cali to-day
2 Vance VS. MesriA.
80 southern vs Arncic.
- SIoish& M Klnaer VS. Pointer.
" &OA243k " LAyAtAa
fis Kahn W Butler.
Ia United Ssstes - Patton & LasdIRiRs
50 Hicks " Shslten, 103es : Co,
sss Dale, Ross 4 Withers rs KoeT.
~ Wneiau ys GfSsnlaw.
IS: Richardson VS. Bishop.
5y3 Love vs. Hough.
81 Mnrlson " Gardner & Bond.
Sos Wheatly rs Anderson q cay.
5l4 SVEN VS. OrDe, executor.
SIS United states YsTrayis ct al.
81 R!dalee 5 81 Fs Pilow tai
So SonneA IN 4 Co vs. Vim Weyhe Z &c.
SCI HcfFehimeF Btos Us q Franz & Bro.
$50 Grinir " nelCaeA, sdmiDlatratcr.
$50 Steeaback &c vs. Jehle. +
575 A3ohplon 8 % vs. -NeSh hes Ct al
q Ho
Sc sweRe, Levy 4 CO vs. We7hes = Go.
SO LsRBsdorf sta "
10 JCrdOn ct al vs.
81 FTefdenwale s Co vs.
MuNIotPAL Court GeosK WGlaros,
Lldge.-The calendar of cases for yestef-
day were aisposedof OF. The following cal
endar will be taken up to-day
1916 OtHsrn vs 2. d. Bseeher.
lI09 Holland Bro, nse, w MasShali.
ilIf Dixon ex'fvs La1e
s1l Mansfield & Higoee vs. CherGt.
'1l4O Henwood VS. Ensley. =
-ll59 Oreil Bios < Co VS. Lafktp.
ll90 State VS. Speed. Mc&anus& CO..
LIZ Walker, adm'rvs tpeed q S.reng>.
no fnompsonYsAea5rsi Association course.
l2s7 oyerton vs. Hughes.
f2ss Maddox vs. Bullgca.
IL the above cases which were specially
set for to-day gre disposed Of before the
hour OF adjournment the docket viii be
taken up at No. 1880 ard run TO 1860 in
elusive.
CHANcERY CoURT.-W Vim. II. Smith:
GRaRceboT This cesrt is still engaged
In hearing the argument eg demurrer,
n the Nieholson paving cases. The ar
gument viii be resumed this morning.
The Clerk aud Master VIII take an &C
count in The cgse Of Ward ' Morgan
ct al.
LAW COURT-A s. Lee, Jakdqe.-The
calendar for yesterday was disposed Of.
The following cases viii be called for
trial to-day:
1922 Packer vs. Holland ct AZ.
lte4 Price VS. Hunt.
lls5 Holland Us Paeser aud wife.
Ils7 tyler va Hunt.
f22 Foley W Dud3n &.Bro.
I44I Stll1asn &Co. ys Bluff city Insurance Co.
IAs Rice VS. Walke 81 al.
.f4s Mckinney a Co. vs. Kirk.
1+4t Mhttemore ct al vs. woodward,
iss5 Elliott, ex., Va Walt ct al.
l47 Davie VS. Bolton 81 a.
lbs Dean ct e. VS. Vaughan etsh.
Il13 NelH Us Wli1S.
FlfD Park vs. City OF Memphis.
ki451 Besthod Is Able.
IL McSain VS. Hubbard.
Iss4 UDion BANK VS. Rsiakley.
1917 Loler VS. Foley
1875 Cash VS. DeloReh, agm'r.
1895 Ames, woodbury. ct al VS. cogswen and
wife.
1923 Wildbssger " Brown.
293t Memphtsa and Charleston Railroad Compe
ny ~ MuDf5rd et al.
The case OF Hickey vs. Hyatt Odell
and Wolf q on trial and win be disposed
Of in q short time this mcrning,