Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-03
THE COURTS.

OA2A6O 0AAAE6 O4cEE1GI AMI NAhr
CUT CoURTs-C Connolly r. TFfgg, pTes5d-
fRg.-The Circuit Court docket was taken
up In this Court on yesterday, and called
over for the first time. There being few
lawyers present, many oasee were con-
tiuued and passed over until the second
reading, at which time all cases all be
disposed Of.
Ia the case Of Harris We. Butler, 1t sp-
pears that Harris has knowledge Of fraud
ulent disposition Of property, and has
claims against Butler which have not
been proven. The Court gave leave to
the counsel to present argument, which
they will do this morning. w. Y. G..
Humes. for plaintiff; Heiskell, for de-
PENDANT.
In case Ne. So, equity docket, Green.
law ct al VS.. Watt, . petition nom the
PLAINTIFF was presented through Mr..
MeKissiek, their COUNSEL, to move the
case TO the Supreme Court Of the State,
as the court had no Jurisdiction IN the
case, because he laws lately passed by
Congress giving the courts Jurisdiction,
were passed after the case had been cent
from the ChaDcery Court to this court.
The papers were submitted and the de-
eisiOn reserved.
The case OF the United States vs. Cot
ton, q condition was asked for In the
bond Of G. N. Gill, to protect the inter-
est Of other claimants to the cotton.
Papers submitted aud decision reserved.
The following cases will be tried this
week /: Grishsm vs. Lane, and Anderson
vs. White, for this morning; United
States vs.. Jones ct al, for Saturday, and
German Life Insurance Company vs..
Fferich & Rosenbseh, for Friday.
In the case of MCGEE, assignee, va.
Henry Riggs an order for pro oonfesso
was issued.
Ga motion of Mr.. Humes, Il was asked
that Geo. Mahon be appointed commits
sioner Of deeds for the city Of Memphis.
Granted.
Ia the cases of the st. Louis Sectional
Dock Company vs.. steamer st. Patrick,
an order pro cOnfesso having been Issued
on Saturday last, yesterday the money
was ordered to be paid over, or execution
Issued at once.
La the following cases Judgment by de-
fault was rendered Cochran IS. Loeb ct
al, Nos. 762 and S57.
Mr.. john G. Reed having been ap-
pointed United States Commissioner Of
Deeds fJT Brownsville, Tenn, and on be-
ing sworn, objected 20 taking the IRON
clad oath because ne could not do 30. It
having been the custom OF this court not
to compel the officers Of the court to take
this oath, but al Always to exact 1t Of officers
OF the United States government, Mr..
McKissiek raised the question whether a
commissioner Vas required to take the
iron-clad Osth, he being appointed by the
court, subject to the orders Of the court,
and held his Office only st the pleasure of
the court. His HouCr, Judge Trigg,
stated that he would, with pleasure, hear
any argument that would convince him
OF his error. Il is expected that this
question will be further discussed this
morning.
Law COURT-H s. Lee, Judge
Attorneys and other Justices interested,
will please take notice that the hearing
of a large number Of motions, made by
John Donovan, late Clerk OF this Court,
for judgment over for his fees, against
successful parties In various judgments
rendered in this Court since the war, will
occupy the attention of the Court this
morning, Immediately after the case of
wilkins VS.. MeGrath Is given to the
Jury. A number OF similar motions made
by the present Clerk against the Mayor
and Aldermen, will come on to be heard
at the same time. After which the fol-
lowing calendar will be taken up:
l0u Rsadig vs. Jelly.
I13 ksrns VS. CrSwleys
1851 VinsOn vs. Sample.
los WestcOtt " Mitchell
1919 Stoyau rs Manlags
I32 RsPp VS. Curry.
1916 Forrest vs. Williams.
l257 Hicks & Smith vs. Peel.
| l5S Heen W. AShe.
I45g Hiek=y vs. Hyatt, Odeli. Wolf Co
1859 keane vs. 81 & U K r Co.
1881 Hard n W SteInkuhl.
1852 Grace VS. Hogan q Co.
lZ63 Dryer vs. Taylor.
1854 Memphis City K r Co vs. Sullivan.
1865 Heyman vs. seldner 4 Co.
1856 @ehling ger q Stn VS. Worries ei al.
1857 SalitvaR VS. Memphis City r Z Co.
1858 Newton VS. Pump.
l265 Maune VS. MancOurt 4 BryEon,
IZT0 same VS. Same.
I27t Clarke vs. sans.
IE2 Dean VS. 5ams.
LIB Crops vs. same.
1874 Bruce vs. GATH.
lZ75 Z ISL VS. DeLoash, admr'x.
1875 Beatty VS. GOod9in.
III Heinrich VS. Jackson 4 Van Brocxlfu,
| lHs Hunt VS. Ro11er, admrx-
lZ79 HOrnsby & Ball VS. Carter.
lzSO WATSON VS. ROsser.
MUNICIPAL CoURT-Geo. ". Waldrdn,
Judge.-The calendar published for
yesterday was entirely disposed of.
Court meets promptly at nine o'clock
this morning when the following cases
will be called for trial:
If2t Meyer VS. SIDES.
lI74 McOomos & Co w Davis.
| 1908 Fisk, agent, VS. PARK.
| 1917 L4WEe1ce, aSministratrix Va Mitchell.
Wa
/ 1850 Hug VS. EtcherSerne.
Its Memphis GsyosO Savings Institution vs.
Wstter.
1871 Briggs q Peter-oa VS. whitmore & Tyler.
l2S Pratt, Oakley & Co vs. Clsaves, exso1trix.
1913 Money vs. Casey.
/ lZU Thampson " Mem phiz Association Course.
1911 Dixon & HUFF vs. Meath.
Ia LeSote ~Insur@nee and Trust Company "
1873 Tusgle vs. FORD.
lzT4 SslbY vs. Hicks.
l2I5 WickS VS. Costen.
1875 Br1niDg, use, VS. Taylor.
lZ7I -tOvRil = Laird vs. Nc denry ct al.
70 Memphis City Railroad Co vs. conan
1871 Harnwen vs McHenry.
81 Smith VS. Cunningham ct al.
i2S1 kOcco W VaccarO ct al.
lSS Lacy & MeGhes VS. Brownina.
l24 Calm eL al VS. Speed o. al.
l20 same VS. same.
| l235 same VS. Same.
IN 0vertoa VS. Hughes.
12$ Maddox vs Bullock At al
iRS9 Gr0dmap VS. Sampt ct al
1920 King q MCaenry vs. Mclean.
ll9i Cook vs. Langley.
l2S2 Nc Savings ms vs. Bender.
1888 Same VS. same.
1894 Same VS. Mailer.
! ls95 slime VS. Weigaud ct al.
1875 Same vs. Bender.
1897 Low - Gross.
1888 shaw & Co VS. Kelley.
1893 Mcdonald ct al VS. 9race.f
CHANCERY C0URT.-HD n II. Smith,
Gh0ncekiOr.-The demurrer calendar was
not concluded yesterday. The same will
sgsiR be taken up to-day and concluded,
after which the calendar Of cases on hear
ing docket, which were set for last Mon
day, will be called up for hearing.
CRIMINAL COURT. e. Bi1elos0,
E,aTue eff oOurf. IN To a late hour