Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-10-24
THE u Il

CHANCRRY COURT YIN. N. Smith
| Chancellor, etc.-The following order
and DEGREES we're entered in this court
Yesterday:
Cirode rs Aiken, report confirmed.
| j mes vs James, sale renewed
WaldrOn VS. Waldron, references.
P0ro We RosenbauEi, Levy discharged, etc.
Kerr VS. KelT, report confirmed.
Uunscomb W Wicker hahn, sale.
COston vs. McMshon, copies supplied.
Davis VS. Peplow, appeal granted.
HOlnes vs. swift, or1er 10 ia thy.
Jones VS. Jones, guardian ad Item.
Wider VS. JebIe, confirming sale and hnal.
LaEisr vs. Gsyoso Savings Institution, new par
ties.
6utIer VS. Crawford, sale renewed.
Bu-lsr VS. small,
Bu leg VS. Merrill, final.
Butler VS. Hicks, sale.
CuObins VS. Hill, ale confirmed.
MicksrSham VS. Blythe, report confirmed.
Union Bank VS. Thomasson, reference.
Baxter VS. Baxter, reference.
Taylor vs. Armour, sale.
Wa son VS. McKinnie, sale.
Galliua VS. Murphy, Injunction dissolved.
Armstrong VS. Apperson, order on purchaser.
Price W. Frlce. report confirmed.
Devine VS. Toof, writ OF pr ssession.
Maydwell VS. Wickersham, reference.
Hodges vs. Bank of Memphis, order on COM
Meflor vs. Petit. final.
Smith vs. Smith, sale renewed.
Smith Is EOrtcn pro confeSxo.
HUI IS Ridouht, pro Coz, iesSo,
lNata Va 1udluDrI-s pro tDuIc SO.
Himmehleh VS. Walker, pro confssso.
HandwGrker VS. HelblnZ, pro confesso.
Cabins VS. Myers, pro CO -fesso.
Saffrsns VS. Hsndr!cks1n, pro oonfesso.
Tyler VS. Stratton, pro eonfesso.
Arrdock VS. Lesth, on amendment.
Love vs. &elch, to justify.
Irby VS. SbeTrelt, guardian ad Item.
Tomeny VS. Eaton. Complainsnts in
this cause iisd q petition to have the de-
PENDANTS, l.. B. Eaton and John Eaton,
removed from the E iitorial department
y the Memphis EUering Post, upon the
ground that they were using the col
gems OF the said paper for the purpose
OF slanderirg and yillIfying the COM
plsiHsnts, bath personally and politi-
csliy. Upon hearing the cause the
Chancellor decided that the columns OF
said paper should not be used for such
purposes as alleged in the petition, but
did not order the defendants removed
from the Editorial Chat He, however,
decided and ordered that the Receiver
heretofore appointed should supervise
and watch ove the Editorial Depart
ment of said paper, and prevent the
publication Of articles defamatory OF
complainRnts.
MUNICIPAL CoURF-Geo. ". HdIdron,
Judge, etc.-Yesterday in this Court the
case Of the State VS.. 8 b. Beaumont was
called and the jury empsnneled. Moth
ing else done. Argumento of counsel will
Be hesrd to-day. The cases set for trial
to-day are as follows
I724 State VS. NJ. Johns6n,
l747 State VS. II. WeaIkerbee.
l. o State VS. same.
l76S Slate VS. George Ne,son.
I7Sf State VS. l. Rocco.
LAW CoURT-H s. Lee, Judae.-The
order Of business in this Court yesterday
was as follows:
57l Hunt VS. Harris. mlstrisI.
7S Howard VS. Evans, Jary did not return ve=-
diet.
I'D Va Baceeutt, verdict for defepdsnt.
es5 M.yoranc Aldermen OF Memphis vs. Van
= v3sSt ~+rrl 1T bslow affirmed.
a,s ssms vs. OS,L AcPartlaaS, Judgment be-
87 Ysuns s g DOL vIstsoTrE, specially set for
November So.
To day Is motion day.
CIRCUIT CoURT-George ". Reeves,
,lEudge.-The following cases were di2'
posed Of IL this court yesterdays
state vs. Johnsoa, verdict rot guilty.
state VS. Roselle and Leadbetter leoi0Is1l YER
dot one year imprisonment ID mestale
stats vs. wills. Indictment for larceny; case
given 10 inry no verdict up TO 5 o'clock
pm.
A motion for q new trial Will be made
and argued to day in the cas- Of State VS.
Roselie and Lsadbetter, after which
Court will adjourn over until Monday
morning, for the purpose Of giving the
attaches Of the Court an opportunity to
the Shelby Agricultural Fair.
Upon conveaing Of the Court Monday
morning the following cases On the State
viii be p~eremptorily disposed Of:
state rs j 8 Slack, z
STATE VS. = Battle.