Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-02
THE COURTS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT AND CIR
CUT COURT Hon. Connolly r. Trigg,
presiding. Judgment by default was
rendered in the following cases in this
Court yesterday No. s5S, Carpenter eft
al. Va. Vim. L. Norman 4; No. 804, Tri-
hune, Davis & Co. VS.. Ruffin, Finney &
Co.; No. sol, Craft & Kortreeht VS.. Ed.
Downing. Also, In the following cases
on the District Court docket: The
United States vs.. information furnished
byD. S. Brown cases Nos. $40, 24I, 245,
246 and 262.
The case of the United States vs.. J. E.
Green set for the 9Th Of December.
In the case of Hosgland We. Edmonds,
Pettigrew d Co., defendants, by their at
torney, III. L. Perkins, Esq, filed a de-
murrer to plaintiffs declaration, raising
the question as to whether an infOrmer
can maintain action of debt In his own
name for money, the proceeds of prop
erty forfeited TO the United States, by
acts In violation Of the internal revenue
law, where there had been no lnforma-
ton filed and no forfeiture declared by
any Court. His honor Judge TTigg de-
cided that such action could be main
tanned, and overruled the demurrer.
The case of E. s. Long vs. VIM. Raines
was then taken up. The evidence wss
given on Monday yesterday the srgu-
ment was heard. An attempt was made
to get the court to charge the jury from
the fact that they both being rebels, and
consequently co, oonspiratoTs against the
United States Government, they togeth-
or had entered into a compact for an un-
lawful purpose In that agreement they
gave mutual consent to take each others
property, and therefore one party could
not enter a suit of tTespass against an
other. His Honor Judge Trigg stated
that his reason for refusing to do 30. as
he had formerly done in q similar case,
vas that as this case could not be carried
to a higher court, and that the former
one could, and was carried to the United
States Supreme Court, where his decision
could be settled beyond a questionable
doubt.
Some cases were called on the Circuit
law DOCKET, but no counsel appearing,
they were cor iinued owe until to-day.
DR.. Summers was excused from fur
Their attendance on the traverse jury.
The attention Of the attorneys is called
tn the fact that the law docket Of the
United States Circuit Court will be taken
up on regular call this morning.
CHANCERY CoURT.-Wm. II. Smith,
ChGnoeILor.-Cturt cOnvenes to-day al 10
O'Clock, The argument in the kaufman
cases will be conclr ded, after which the
demurrer calendar Of Tuesday will be ia
ken up, excluding the Nicholson Paving
cases, which are continued over until
Tuesday next. The Clerk and Master
will take an account to-day in the case of
Hamilton VS. Treat ct al,
CRIMINAL FoURF.-J. Z. Bi0elosV,
Judge, etc.-The time of the court yes
terday was occupied in empanneling q
Jury in the case OF State of Tennessee vs..
Henry Jones, charged with the murder
of Capt. Perry, OF the Police force, who
was killed early last spring. This trial
will probably last three or four days.
Law COURT-H. s, Lee, Judge
The calendar published for yesterday was
disposed Of with the exception of One or
two cases. The case Of Wilkins, No.
1882, Ia on trial and will probably con-
sumo the forenoon Of to-day, after which
the following cases will be tried:
l0ll Kepdig vs. Jeilvi
l23 Kerns vs. Crawley.
1851 VinsOn VS. Sample.
l2D8 WestoOtt vs. Mitchell.
1910 Stovail VS. ManiL 3.
1872 R3pp VS. CORY.
1875 Forrest VS. Williams.
l257 Hicks & Smii VS. Peel.
1853 Heen We AShe.
1853 Hickey VS. Hyatt. odeIl, Wolf CO
1850 keaue Va 81 x D K r Co.
1891 Hard a VS.
1852 GraCa VS. Hogan q Co.
1853 Dryer vs. Taylor.
1884 Memphis City X r Co VS. Sullivan.
1926 Heyman VS. Seldner q Co.
1855 Mehlinge q Son vs. Worries ei al.
l2GI Sullivan VS. Memphis City x Co.
1888 Newton VS. Pump
1863 Maune VS. Mancourt q Bryson.
1910 San6 VS. same.
1874 Clarke va same.
1872 Dean VS. Same.
1913 Crops vs. Same.
1874 Bruce VS. GRtti.
f275 Cash VS. DeLoach, admr'x.
1876 Beatty vs. Goodwin.
III Herrfch vs. jackson q Van Brooklin.
1878 Hunt VS. Rodner,a dmrX.
1879 hornsby & Bell VS. Carter.
1850 Watson VS. Rosser.
MUNICIPAL COURT-Ge0. W. Wdldr0n,
,Judoe.-Meets at the usual hour this
morning. To-day the calendar Is as fol-
IT'S Mayfair VS. Choste q Co.
Il59 Holland q Bro vs. Marshall.
Il2I Meyer VS. Sides.
1871 Mansfield ct al VS. Cherot.
las Memphis German Savings Institution "a
ns wiicox. Wright & Co VS. Black ct al.
Il52 Ruhl vs. Ir1gg.
lI75 O'Connor VS. Whelan.
1852 Mess.ck, admir-, VS. walker.
IlSs Cochran VS. Kelly ct al.
80 State of femme see VS. speedst 81
1913 CnriSp VS. PARK.
lToS IaBaw VS. Scndder ct nj.
1913 Creighton VS. Smith.
1874 Dick nsun VS. Winter
1925 Lucas vs. Pain.
1924 Walker, admir-, VS. Speed ct al.
1871 Stewart & Co VS. C0ckreiL.
1855 Stewart & Co VS. Cookrell
1889 Triplsit VS. Cockreil
I240 Memphis City Savings Institution Va
Walker ct al.
124l Vsnable VS. Stones
I2il Bentley, Barton & Co xsNewsome,
1913 Venab VS. Winter.
1874 Knowlton va Saint.
l24l Nelson VS. Allen.
l247 NJ tcnell VS. Wright.
1913 Dupree Va T0neny.
1853 Lewis VS. Webb Il Falls.
1851 Madison VS. Christian OF al.
l2s Memphis City Savings institution VS. CAN'T
et al.
1884 Choats VS. Daley.
1855 Memphis German Savings Institution vs.
slaughter ct al.
1855 Memphis German Savings Institution VS.
Early.
1851 Warwick VS. Jefferson.
1858 Smith vs. Cunningham
1850 Hugg VS. EtchervArne.
1921 Farmer vs. BsttlR.
Leg Commercial Bank Of Tennessee VS. Kendtg.
1858 hill Dodge & Co vs. Dick erson ct al.
1884 American Wine Co va Alderman.
l265 Memphis German Savings Institution vs.
Wetter.
1895 Hill vs. Montgomery.
T.DrreI If non nanf a GOD C1oAk