Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-28

&C narLRoan 49, AoAIN.

H n 49, - AAaNH
TIE Railroad Ring that recently
breateBed Memphis with ali sorts Of
cut OFFS" ard the most dire conse-
q1ences should her citizens refuse to psr-
deipate in their scheme Of wrestling The
Mississippi River Railroad from the
hands Of its ps%tentees, have turned up
in New Orleans in the same role, aud
are throwing at the people Of that city ali
The "reasons" why they should
enjoy an undisturbed monopoly Of
tsAcel and traffic betTesn the North
and the South, so familiar to the readers
OF t,e APPEAL. The New Orleans
Psco4.as is good authority in this matter
sad 1on pend what it had to say about
I It on Christmas me.eing, IS follows:
Il IS insisted that the ronte now exist
ing through the Mississippi Central with
Jackson, Tennessee, and which is to lie
pr0Iosged TO Huntington, there 10 con-
meet with q Nashville route, will suffice
for 8 connection with the capital Of Fen
nessee, being only five miles further, IS
It IS asserted, than the route proposed /;
and as TO Shortening tie route eastward
6v s0Gy o. Decatur some eighty-three
miles, that this mil be OF no advantage
ie through trdUeI, because the connections
aimed at Gy the bssSess Of the Mississippi
Central and the final absorption bg them
Of the stock Of that road and Of all is con
meeting lines, which s0s are privately as
s,tred they mediate, G0iH render this Ue-
necessary.
Then we, ofNew Orleans, are told that
If we undertake to aid Ia the completion
OF the origiDSl ROME Of the Jackson and
Great Northern Road, these lessaes will
strive to get the Sfste OF Mississippi 10
aid them TO continue the Central Road
to Mississippi City and Ship Island, fu.-
ting ia ali its stock ia the Jackson, aud
perhaps other T0Gis, and that thereby a
great commercial rival viii De raised up
to cur detriment. The. City and the jack
so8 Rosd directory sTe advised 70 use all
their means solely 20 {" foster her (ths
railroads. present valuable and efficient
connections; thereby preserving her re-
latiOns Of amity and cooperation with
them. ShOuidRhs not, asks the Water
Valley Eagle, rather go to work and
eXpend her surplus cash in making bet
ter preparations TO perform more prompt
ly and efficiently the business now offer
ing, and preserve her present kind reis-
tiOns with her more direct extension
n0rthward, 20 as to prevent \ revival Of
that old and iavOrito project Of the State
of Mississippi TO extend the Mississippi
Central Road from Canton to Mississippi
City.
The italics il the shove viii attract at
tention. 1t will be seen on careful read
ing, that whereas the " Riug'' here con-
tended for the shortest route, in New
Orleans they were opposed to it, and are
preparing e cary their points By an sb.
sorpacnoh s., the stock Of the Central,
andbeAaE Is connecting links, the Mis-
s.s,p f. and Tennessee, we presume, in
clufA
theIN the Court of Common Pleas at Bal.
,rr,lore a case was tried on the following
2 eme1t OF facts: In 1865 ]. R STEW
gave a note, signed By himself for
\ sysbie TO the order OF s. T. GROIN
WELL Ga the back or the note were
sig ne names of WILLIAM Laws and
ELI HENCKLz, at the time of its delivery
to CKoMwzLL, but which CROMWELL
never endorsed. The note was not paid
at maturity nor protested, and NO notice
given OF nOn-payment TO LAWS or
HENCKLE. CROMWELL brought salt
sgainst all three IS the makers o; q jeint
and several note, though on its face it
was IL promise to pay.n The defend
ants, STEWART * Laws, severed their
defense and pleaded separately, LAWS
claiming to be merely an endorser, and
signed his name on the back of the note
as such that to be held liable the note
needed protest aud notics to him Of dis
honor. The plaintiff claimed that IS the
anne Of all the parties were on it at the
time Of delivery, whatever part Of the
paper bore the signatures OF the parties,
they were joint makers as much as if
their names had been signed on the face
OF the note and Immediately unGer the
first signer, and AZ such they were liatls
without protest or notice. The court go
ruled and Judgment vas given for the
plaintiff.