Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-10-15
THE COURTS.

LAW CoURT-H S. Lee, HIdge.-Th'
jury was ~empanneled on yesterday. Tht
new Gases on the trial docket will b,
called Informally to-day under the fol
lowing rule of Court-Rule No. 4: 90
the fourth day OF the term the e case
on the trial docket will be called, wheI
Judgments by default may be taken II
ali cases appealed from Magistrates
where either party fails to appear anC
prosecute or defend. judgments by con-
sent may also be taken at such call of the
docket"
CHANCERY COURT YIN. III. Smith
Chancellor, etc.-Tne DEGREES and orders
entered on yesterday are as follows:
Buutyn VS. Harf, final pecree.
Singlston VS. Singleton, nnai decree.
WesmOre VS. MOrtoD,
Welsh vs Dswes, order interlooutory,
| Hurst VS. Peel,
Gil VS. Dephan ct al,
Drew VS. GWynn, hnald decree.
Bucker VS. Robinson
! Bishop VS. Place, reference.
Union Blk VS. Armstrong, introductory order.
White vs. WIckersham, decree on record.
Connolly VS. Mayer, motion 10 Dissolve iEtunc-
ton.
Carver VS. Carver, final decree.
Davis VS. Jsnes, revivor.
Chiguizola VS. Lertord, revivor.
BIO Tn vs Boyer, Ieyivor and reference.
Bach VS. Lowndes, inJeriocutory order.
Tenn N ms co VS. Potter, reiersnce.
Fenneli vs. Montgomery, sale.
MjnIgo merry VS. Montgomery, reference.
Vines VS. English, abatement.
Greeniaw VS. Monroe, motion for receiver.
Wendell VS. wendell, reference.
Price VS. Parker, reference.
Belcher VS. Anderson, reference.
Nlpgen VS. Russell, interlocutory orde-.
Siiliman VS. DAVE, leviYoE.
StiIIman VS. lincoln, reyivoT.
Jones w Anderson, final decree.
Nooe vs. Hall, reference.
Ferguson VS. Aldridge. order on rece.ver.
Tate vs. Brown, abatement order.
The Clerk and Master will take an &C.
count to-day in the case of Finlay, admr.
vs. Heglin, ct al.
The cases set for hearing to-day are IS
fOliQEs:
1874 Stockley vs. Trigg ct Al.
I5 Walker VS. 9rigg ct al.
20 Stewart ct al W speed et al.
30 Southern Blk Tenn VS. FlIppiu.
rs + 1wE.ds Us CIatL Ell al.
24S Watson VS. C2rrutbeTs.
237 Mansneld & co VS. Hanna ct al.
IS lizard S. ks.nsy ct Al.
23S HesOner VS.. Winter.
241 Fletcher VS.. Winter.
24I Collier VS.. Coleman ct al.
ZAP ClaybfOOk VS.. Wzda.
2B MOsby et al. ex parte &c.
IA Union BA IenD. vs.. Armstrong et al,
245 Eibler vs.. Wa ker.
23 ShuitTiers VS.. Seebtrt.
~ Bail We. WaddeU admir-.
Us hArDsrL va. FinLie OF Al.
A9 May VS.. Manly ct al
D. Marsh ct al We Record Ell al.
2ol HenkIey We. Ketohum 5L al.
252 Edsios VS. Dunn.
23 Belts o. al. vs., L+lFds
254 Etmonds vs.. Fiber et "a.
Is Jones ct al VS.. spencer.
25j Gaines w. Williams
81 Hyde We. Winters 81 e..
IS HofRStadt VS.. RsfalsSi.
29 simmons VS.. h
go Dill eli al. VS.. Alsop Of al
2fl Fitzgerald, ex pafte.
22 Butler ct al VS.. Johnston ct al.
DIg RqfpGU Va Ma a. Il Y To
2B4 Msgsveney, admir- va. NJ. & L. r.. &. r. Co.
rs Hughes, admir- ". NJ, & L. Il K r. O..
20 Rayland, ex parte.
2o7 Pittmau ct al VS. Peyton et al.
253 Moore VS. Nelson ct al.
l09 Judson VS.. Nelson ct al.
20 B ethel We. Nielsen ct al.
Court meets to-day at 10 o'clock an.
MUNICIPAL COURT-Geo. w. RoldrGn,
case of Galbresth ct al. vs..
Loeb, occupied the attention Of the court
On yesterday, but was moi concluded
The argument Of the case will be re-
at 2 o'clock pm. to-day.
In tbs case Of Memphis City Railroad
Company Va. PrOViue, a judgment was
taken for the plaintif-s240O; Walker
We. Sharp ct al, new trial granted Els
nan Va. Blum, new trial overrulei;
rurnage vs. KsnGig & Bro, pew trial
1verruled Sanford, ex'r., ys. wesson,
lew trial granted.
To-day, business on the criminal side of
he court will BE- resumed at 10 o'clock
an. The CAGES are as follows:
$50 10 92 State VS. Schooles, keeping gaming
house.
1915 state VS. Henderson, larceny.
l606 State VS. DeS5to, gaming.
1907 state VS. Quinn, gaming.
90 10 1855 state vs. N%etter, keeping gaming
house.
.e44 TO 1858 State VS. Cunningham, keeping gam
ing house.
IVA Stale Us Jonns8n, larceny.
lTS5 state VS. HarshaU, gaming.
lT31 SBale VS. Shsw, gaming.
G4i STATE VS. sishsr, unlawful retailing.
~ 10 100 state VS. WetAerOse, unlawful re-
failing.
lT6o State VS. Williams, carving con
cealed weapons.
l766 State vs. Midget, carrying concealed
weapoDs.
l75s State vs. Nelson, carrying concealed
weapons.
liz State VS. Adams, larceny.
IA 10 lTB State VS. Simons. gaming whilst an
of1eer OF the State.
IS State VS. Rocco, keeping gaming
house,
SHELBY CIRCUIT CoURT.-Geo. "
JIdge.-On yesterday the case
If the State We. Hudnall, indictment for
murder, was called up for trial. The in
lictment is for the murder OF q negro;
he defense, justification. The trial of
he case viii be continued to-day. The