Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-09-03
THE COURTS

MUNICIPAL CoURT-GeO. ". WdLdTdn
Judge.-The cases set for trial to-day arr
as follows
59l Hendel son VS. Memphis and Arkansas River
Packet Company,
GO2 Norris W. SteinRuhl,
60 Erayser ct al VS. Herman, admir-.
6ZS Brown, use, ETC., VS. WOODWARD ct al.
b56 Davis VS. Horton Ell al.
67S Smith VS. Leonard ct al.
6S5 Commercial Sank Of Tennessee VS. Lofand
go Fox vs. Baehr.
7S5 Norment ct al VS. Worsham.
T4l Berlin VS. Fraime.
IA Low VS. Iingsheim.
745 Wieble, aduI'r, VS. -Schinenbaums Of al.
IA II neLt W MorriSsey.
75S Williams VS. Gayner.
100 Croni, admir-, VS. Nooe.
I3 Russell, Grove & Co VS. Carter.
764 Lemon vs. Finnie.
40 Rindskcn Bros & Co vs. Petit ct al.
IA Maidhot VS. MO6att.
T6 Carson VS. Wright ct al,
III Rocco VS. Naccalo ct al.
$50 Hacket VS. Winters.
zSi Van Alstyne ct al VS. Steamer Lady.
7S6 Smith VS. CrenShaw.
7S9 Murray Va Singleton.
49, Brinklsy VS. WclcOtt ct al.
S3 STATE Of Tennessee VS. Whitemore ct al.
So Walker VS. Tyler.
s 5 Sanger VS. Simpson.
500 COrby, USE, etc, VS. Bates.
80 Clements VS. Anderson ell al,
sll Hayden, Saunders & Co VS. Robinson.
So First National Sank VS. CockreIL.
Sl8 First National Bank VS. Waldran Il Co.
s ) Peyton VS. Blum.
Sl9 Kesfe VS. FiIbert & 20.
20 FennelIv VS. Filbert q Co,
S2l Levy VS. Ftlbert & Co.
81 Wolcott, Smith Il &C VS. D~ifenbacher,
SS Seward, use, etc, VS. Margrsye.
81 Allen VS. Taylor,
S3 Dickinson VS. Brinkley.
so Mckinney, BTyson x Co VS. Miller.
81 Fuller VS. Rice.
845 L~oWenstein & Bro VS. CockYen.
$40 Maltby et al VS. Waggener & Co.
so Lawrence vs. Ivlnson.
$50 Pfannestock VS. ParhaD, admir-.
S5 Dixon vs. f1lbert ct al.
In the case Of the State VS.. Burdett re-
Gently tried, ten Of the jurors filed an af1
davit stating that they stood six for con-
victiOn and six for acquittsl and never
would have agreed, If they had not I'M
derstOOd that by agreement of counsel en-
gagged in the cause, they should return q
verdict of guilty and impose q nominal
fine upon the defendant Of one cent-and
they were much surprised when Judge
Waldran imposed the additional penalty
or removal from office, which if they had
known in time, they would never have
agreed upon q verdict, and as they had
been told by the Court that it was their
province to fix the penalty, they never
intended to fix any such penalty as remo-
val from Cffi e.
On the motion for new trial this af1da-
Wit was read in support of the same, but
the motion was overruled by the Court,
Judge Waldran believing that under the
Code, be had q right to af1x the addi-
tional penalty to that returned by the
Jury. The case, with all its eomplica-
tons, has been appealed to the Supreme
Court. :
Several judgments were taken yester-
day. The calendar was fully disposed by
con inuance and otherwise. In case 500
the State vs E. w. Wiekersham, a judg-
ment was taken sgaiDst the defendant
for S335S 81. In case 572, the State VS..
4. w. Wickersham, a judgment was Ia
ken against the defendant for 1896 SO.
CRIMINAL CoURF- Nm, Hsaster,
Jndge,-In the q OF the State VS.. Jas.
Jones, indictment for malicious shoot,
ing, the defendant was admitted 10 bail
in the sum of $1,000. The prisoners found
guilty during the present term were sen.
fenced to the penitentiary as follows /:
Lewis Cross, burglary, tweDty-one e /;
w. ID. Donnelly, burglary twenty-one
years J. ID. Carmichael, horse stealing,
t~Wenty.one years; W. z. Carmichael,
morse steallng, twentysone years.
To-day the final call of the docket will
be made. All parties out on bonds for
their appearance at this term of the
Court, must appear to-day and renew the
same, or foEfeitures will be taken against
them and 2 eapias issue for their rear.
rest.
HOWELL, WOOD & Co, at the South
ern Palace, have q large and elegant
stock OF goods, selected for the city trade
with the greatest possible care. Laces,
ribbons, linens, domestics and dress
goods from the best manufacturer, COM
prise a stock that makes ones mouth
water TO think Of. Go and examine.