Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-13
THE COURTS.

CUT COURT-Hoa- Connolly f. Trigg,
PTestdtnG.-O1 opening the Court the
case OF Southern va. Arnold was taken
up the counsel for The defendant hay
ing Closed yesterday, Col. CAN'T, for the
prosecution commenced the closing
argument. In b course NJ MS remarks
after removing the odium csst upon his
client by the counsel on the other side
ne clearly, foreibiy and logically recon
eiled the evidence given in q mastery
manner. After reviewing tile case in ali
its bearings, as fsr ss the facts were con-
cerned, he proceeded TO reply to the law
questions raised yesterday rs to the va
lidltZ OF Q contract under the existing
aets OF Congress, pending which the
court Adjourned until ten O'Clock Mon
day morning.
Law CoURT-H. s.. Lee, Jadqe-The
motion docket ia this Court wss entirely
disposed Of yesterday. VIrits Of judg-
ment viii be executed Monday morning,
after which the following calendar will
be taken up:
lfl Pstnlsn vs. Goezsl.
~ Eboert VS. Me onne1.
1875 Johnson vs. Elliott a Co.
l44 Strimer Bros. w ~Stulznaki & Rosenfeldt.
i4lo Mitchell vs. Stewart & Bro.
li!7 - Stewart
l4H Mitchell, admir-, vs. same.
ifIs Mitchell vs. eva q Bro.
80 brs0lofu, adm'r, eL Fl vs. Shirley.
$50 EverdOn vs. Grace ct ii.
l43I Postal Is Wright ct al.
- Anderson &Grsy vs. Murphy.
1858 Lincoln vs. MONTGOMERY
1884 Morgei& ~Fiedoiday vs. Juukerman
l4o same vs. same.
CHANCERY COURT.-W m. n Smith,
Chdncen0T.-Meets pursuant to adjourn
ment Monday morning st 10 O'Clock am.
me calends published in Saturdays
day.
CRIMINAL COURT f. Rioelosg,
JHdge.-The following business was
transacted in the above Court on roster
day In the case Of the State vs.. John
Gsrin, indicted for murder, the Jury
returned q verdict OF mot guilty.
State vs.. N. Horrigan, the Attorney
General entered a noise pToseq1si. In
the Case OF the State IS. Amos Il. Cur
lin, indicted for the murder Of VIM. L.
Porter, the Court fixed the amount of
ball at 1900. State vs.. Hans Margum,
bond fixed at 5000. State vs.. Auguste
Vsught, bond fixed at $1,000. In the case
Of the State vs. Frank Coburn the jury
returned = verdict OF mot guilty." The
jury in the case Of the State VS.. Frank
Gatti had not, up to q late hour last
night, agreed. Ths following cases are
set for trial on Monday next,.s sud will be
either tried or continued until the next
term:
State vs. ThOs. PreEett, murder.
State vs. Joe King. larceny.
State vs. Dock Smith, horse stealing.
State vs. Daniel Owen, larceny.
state VS. VIM Adansand JnO- Riley. larceny.
state vs. James Cobb, hOuEe-breaktuE.
state vs.D. sauneer, false pretences.
state VS. jas. Fitzgerald, murder.
Parties defendant on bond, snd wit
nesses summoned, must be in stiendAnee
or forfeituTes will be taken against them.
MUNICIPAL COURT-Ge0. ". WdLdToR,
Judge.-Oniy S few motions were dis
posed Of yesterday. Disappointing
upon the motion docket will stand over
until next motion day. The time Of the
Court was principally occupied yesterday
IN trying the case OF Lacy & McGhee vs..
Brown, which, not being concluded up TO
the time OF adjournment, WIS continued
over until Monday, to be taken up i'm
mediately upon the converting OF the
Court. The calendar set for that day is
as follows:
l25J Lewis vs. Webb & Falls.
Los Myers Garfield q Son vs. Roescher.
less laird VS. L4Ying.
l413 Taylor et al vs. Reid.
i40S Roberts vs. Sides et al.
1909 state vs. Wheeler ct al.
l4lz kohn vs. LOrey ct al.
I5ls Briggs & Peterson VS. Kimbro.
l4i4 White vs. Withers, Sr.
I4l5 Lawrence VS. Bartlett Gould Ell al.
.l4l6 Lavigue vs. Lantery.
l4l1 Myers vs. C0ckTelI.
l4lS 81. Louis and Memphis Packet Connpsny
VS. Peres & Co.
1919 sisge7ney vs. County Of Shelby.
1870 Doll ng vs.
l42I Rhine vs. Mitchell.
1922 Wren VI County OF Shelby.
IASS Brinkley vs. LemmCn ct al.
l424 Same vs. Terry ct al.
l42j Hart 70 Williams.
i4A Mosby, Receiver, VS. Tague ct al
l42S Black, Estes q Co. vs. JefeTies.
l49 LomaN vs. Kelley et al.
l4S0 Smith, admir-, Us Mclean.
lfSI Cubbins, Gum & COOyer vs. Holman &
HirSch.
l42 Tenn. Nat. Bank, use, VS. Bingham.
1888 Same vs. same.
1884 TOpp. use etc. vs. COcErelL.
1875 Dawson vs. 6antt6 WaGdeh.
1876 NJ. German Savings Institution vs. Lse. IT..
ct al.
1887 Same VS. Overto1 ct al.
l4S Same vs. kauutz-
l45s same VS. Hitzie!d.
l440 Same VS. MesLh.
l44l sans VS. Hogel ct al.
l442 Same vs. Wesehe.
lii5 Same VS. Slaughter.
i444 same vs Slaughter ct al.
li5 same Us Black q BaymiIier.
l4+5 Same vs. BaymiIIeF Ell al.
l44T Same vs. Eohms ct al.
same We Slaughter e. al.
l44s Wilson vs. Rufdn & Finfey.
1850 CGttes VS. Gay.
Court meets promptly az 9 o'clock.