Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-22
THE COURTS.

- tANN - - a u
we're continued on I'll iavits Of defend
ants.
Ia ths case Of Wilkins vs.. J J. Scar
a motion was made thst a receiver 9.
appointed, which was granted by Ia
ccu5t, and J. Z PurueIl vas selected.
D1 motion Of District Attorney War
zen, Trits UeaditfOHi exp010s we're or
jared 70 ba issusd In cases NOs. 5Ge. 63f
535 and 753.
Ia cas- No. ia a motion wss mad
by Mr.. Graft for q new trial, On To,
grouId that the verdict was contrary t.
the testimony, the p'sintif g counsel
claiming that the Judgment should have
been FOR ten dollars an acre instead o.
i've dOilsTs. Mr.. C!spp, counsel for tbs
defense, cOnteDded that the judgment
was excessive, ss Anderson, the defend.
ant, had been benefited aud not iD.
jurfd, cat, under the circumstances, be
had concluded to abide the judgment.
His Honor, Judge Trigg, said he WIS
bound to consider the party making the
application as Ia earnest thought the
plaintiff would never get q jury to give
nim more, aud that he wss fully c5m.
pensated, and would let the verde.
stand.
the eas Of Richardson vs.. BIshop
having been set for yesterday, was then
tsken up. Pending the examination o.
witnesses the Court adjourned.
The following cases are set for to day /:
Germania Life Insurance Company ".
Freisrieh & R1ssnbsch, aud HubbeiI vs..
Chamberlain.
Guy Lseper, ESD o. jackson, vas ad-
mitted TO practice IN this Court.
The case OF Mrs. Catherine Baiiev Va.
st. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Com
paDy, was decided today. II srnaars
rom the evidence that Dr.. Bailey had
made application, and it was granted.
for Insurance, on the 18th Dsesmbsr.
1887; that DR.. Bailey fsihd to psy his
premiums for three quarters; that on the
Tn July, 1868, Dr.. Bailey yves taken
down With congestive fever; that the
attending physicians gave 10 ali
hope OF his recovery; that Mr..
Winston Bailey, The Doctors son. upon
the advice OF friends, procured monev.
called at the Company's cfice, paid
the premiums and procured the o~oiicy.
taat Winston Bailey represented to the
agents that his father was in
ais usual health at the time thst Dr..
Bailey died Ia twelve hours after BFocur-
ing tae policy that on the elh or JuIv.
1868, the agents informed EFs. Rsilev
That the contract was null and void. or
aeeount OF fEa1dulent representations :
thst they offered TO pay back to her the
prsmiunsi that the compsBy's agents.
upon hearing Of Dr.. BsileyIs deatb'
called up their clerks Instructed them
nG1cs particularly what had been said
insten Bailey, and that II DR..
ssiieY died they would resist the pay
19ns 81 the policy. The Court charged
Jasg SUBSTANTIALLY thss TIE agent Of
lts-s@aee rs1y could NOT hold
. ne contract II DR.. asy lived, ana
-e2oiISse Hh &c died. Tie siisg 3
short r~eJfsL returned : verdict ssf
plaintiff Of S5005 tbs full snouat 81
The policy.
Law C0URT-A 3 lee, Htdgs-The
-oiIow'Gg 38sss will be brought 10 before
10 CoaTt this morning:
FahDestoek et 81 va FarnasworIb
ct al.
435 Barron vs. Wade.
49, Aver q Co Us %
-431 BrtnkeEhoG VS. same.
as Manning Il Co VS. same.
Oh beard, Use, ETC., Va Saint. exir.
Psrtee We CogSswell.
.3t6 Johnson & Wright va Walt ct 81.
-5l1 Frank vs. Smell ct 81.
pc Isylor, MCEwen & Blew Us Roberts.
.oIS WHEREOF vs. Armstrong,
$50 HUT vs. ROduer. adm'r,
.5ol PsFtee Va OOggswell.
595 hamilton Us Mckinney ct al.
1o5 Walcott, Smith & c. W King.
9ot watson, trustee, vs. Donaldson ct AZ
$50 Same vs. same.
7o6 same We same,
5S7 Same vs. game.
PCS WGd0eil vs. Ogden At al.
5sS Martin vs. McLeffesh.
55t VS. Pittul4a ct al.
SIS COnlsy vs. Joyce.
3I8 Alien ct al vs. CoegsgeU.
oIs Style VS. Anderson,
attorneys will take notice that during |
be remainder of ths present term causes
iuss De tried, continued, or dismissed
rsaonedi and parties not ready for
-iGI "hen tnelr csuses are reached, viii
'se toe term. No more cases will be
set at this term,
MUNICIPAL COURT-Geo. ". Wq1dgca.
udge.-Ihe calendar OF cases called
esterdsy was entirely disposed of. To-
Aiy, the following cases will be called for
iai:
Tennessee National Bank. use. etc.
VS. Bingham.
IS Same Va same.
Al Motion VS. Saint,
AS DupFee VS. Tomeny.
.73 Tuggle vs. Ford.
~ Hampton vs. Mississippi Valley In.
sursnee Company.
20 tennessee Life, Marine AID Fire Ia
france Co vs. Walton,
q Same We Pares & Co.
Is Same vs. Whaleu,
50 hatch vs. WagSsner ct al.
.7s Freteh vs Graves ct al.
% Cragley VS. Back ct a.
~ smith, admir-, vs Mclean.
% Bsibkey VS. Gates & Wood.
81 Ssme VS. EsUas.
IS Smith VS. Evans.
~ GraGRul VI Williams,
" Winters VS. County OF Shelby.
Il R0thFoek vs Grant. J
st bsFGntsiGs rs Hum.
II Kane vs Home CO.
AZ same Us Security Insurance Co,
- same vs. Enterprise ~Iasuranee Co.
Tt SsGs vs. Putnsm InscFsnes Co,
CHANCERY COURT Hm. n s2nffh.
aGaceLiOT.-Ths following eases sre set
herring to-day, on pleas and demur.
motions, etc.:
sndeFviila vs. Persons.
etc VS. Oyerton Hotel Company.
ppsTsOn vs. Laird.
vs. freeman,
snkert vs Galloway.
lstar vs. Hinson.
TEX VS. Williams.
9th We BEAUMONT
soto Bank vs. Caiulhers.
O=s Va Cr0ss.
o. VS. Price.
Inn vs. HGUgh.
tomas VS. Shelton.