Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-07-01

ston & ThrastOn.
43 Planters Bank IS. Douglas 1T 81.
A Lincoln vs.. Davie.
rs WOrsham vs.. Heron ct al.
30 Polk VS.. Armour.
81 Schabel VS.. WickeFsham.
y Cash VS.. Curtin ct al.
- PrOudfit VS.. Pickett ct al.
81 Sharp vs.. Hunter ct al.
IS Burr'vs. Dickinson.
63 Harbert VS.. Mix.
90 Chaplin ct al. VS.. BOOse ct al.
- Waggener vs.. Montgomery tt at.
II Vaccaro IS. Hendrick.
IS Wynne vs.. Walt.
81 WitherspOOn ct al. vs.. Gr0svcnOI
ct al.
50 Meath vs.. Craig.
% Lee vs.. Walt ct al.
So Same VS.. Same.
10i Clark vs.. Stanton.
100 Stettheimer ct al. vs.. SamelsOn
ct al.
l07 Moore VS.. Pope ct al.
10 Harbert Us. Rains ct al.
l19 Barry VS.. Frayser.
Id GreenlaW vs.. Miller.
I24 Mcknight, admir-, vs.. Dill x Co.
l37 Wickersham, admir-, Us. Creditors
of Blythe.
| NEW DOCKET OF MEMPHIS CHANCERN
COURT.
6 Griffin vs.. Douglas.
7 MOsby vs.. HOws ct al.
y Braden vs.. Wiley ct al.
10 Hamilton VS.. Leftwich.
Is Jas. T. Holmes VS.. l.. A. Walton.
II Jones vs.. Greenlaw.
10 Maydwell vs.. Maydwell.
20 Stanton, TX parte.
p Harris vs.. Weaver.
- Mix vs.. Weaver.
. Williams vs.. Weaver.
d Hillman Bro. VS.. Weaver.
p Boyd vs.. Weaver.
y Bethel vs.. Nelson ct al.
% GayOsO Savings Inst. ". Council.
36 Ruffin vs.. Johnson.
81 Kneef ct al. vs.. Williams ct al.
3S Mcmahon VS.. COOnPy ct al.
80 Meath vs.. Brooks.
10 Cooke vs., Barrett.
46 Hillman vs.. Weaver.
j3 PrOudft vs.. Pickett.
j6 Baker vs.. Hardin.
So Wynne vs.. Wynne.
- McFerrin vs.. White.
JNO. l.. BROWN, Clerk.
CRIMINAL COURT-H. +. Hudson,
.Jfdge.-This Court was occupied the
entire day yesterday in trying the CASE
of the State vs.. Henry Woods, colOred,
indicted for The murder of one Daniel
Tucker, cOlOred. The State was rep
resented by Attorney-Genera HOrri-
gan; the defense by Messrs. Adams 4,
Sandlord. The case was submitted to
the jury at 6 O'clock, and after am
hours absence they returned a verdict
of murder in the first degree, but
recommended the prisoner to the
mercy of the Court. To-day the cal
endar for the week will be resumed.
MUNICIPAL COURT, O.. ". Udldrdlp
Judge.-The trial OF the case of the
State VS. j. w. Brown, charged with
assault and battery, was, after an in
PERMISSION of three days, resumed
yesterday, and though the whole day
was, devoted to investigating the
same, it vet remains undispOsed of
If the above case is closed in time to-
day the case of the State vs. kiernan.
charged with eXtOrtion, will be taken
up. Also, that Of the State vs. Pep.
per, assault and battery.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
C0nRaliy r. TTfgg, Judge.,Judge
Heath closed his argument in the
cotton case early yesterday morning
and was Immediately followed by
Thos. r. Smith for the defense. 1t is
thought that the remainder of the
week will be spent in hearing the
argument in the above cause.
Tn x~.rvpx- DnYvDr H., II On
ChniceHOr.-ln the case of Williams
Boughner, the Chancellor decided
that the Governor had no authority to
remove Williams, and that theFemOyal
OF Williams was void, and so neCes-
are the appointment and COM
mission of Boughner. Therefore an
injunction viii issue in accordance
with the prayer of the bill on COM
plainant executing bond with security
in the sun of $500.
The case of Freeman vs.. Freeman
occupied the attention of the Court
the entire session of yesterday. |
This is a very important suit, iHvolv-
ing the ownership of property ON the
corner of Main and Madi-
son streets, worth some $3.50, 900. The
case will be concluded some day next
week.
Court adjourned until Tuesday, the
9Th inst, at ten o'clock. A calendar
for that day will appear on Monday.
CIRCUIT CoURT.-G. ". Reeres,
this Court yesterday the
trial of the case of Kelly VS.. Mem
phis and Louisville Railroad Com
.any was resumed and continued all
day. Arguments We're made by
Il Craig for defendant, and by
?. j. MulverhilI for the plaintiff. To-
lay as soon rs Court convenes the
case will be submitted 10 the iurv.
No cases viii be brought up for trial
it being motion day. The
motion docket will be called, and all
motions on the same will be heard and
of. The jury in the case of
VS.. CannOvan ct al. rendered a
verdict in favor of defendants.
LAW CoURT.-H. 8. Lee, .Iidqe.-
The case of Smith VS.. Armstrong ct
ii: was again taken up and proceeded
With yesterday, but was not disposed
To-day the Court will conclude in
! very short time, after which the
,alendar will be called, commencing
With No. 2l73 and running up to No.
ZOO. If the above cases are deter
mined before the hour of adjourn
nent, Court will take up the cases
pecIally set. A mistrial was entered
n the case of Ruby VS.. Rogan, admin