Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-01-08

= NALN4NiI Al w NJ tCcs ~ " tehttf tft'
Jldgs.-Nery little business was trans
acted in this Court yesterday. To dag
the following calendar Of cases VIII be
taken mp s3d called for trial
1928 Hampton VS. Mississippi Valley To-
suTaLce Company.
1879 Smith IS Bal.
l425 Park VI Williams.
1884 IJpp, use etc, vs. COekra,l.
1902 Winters rs County Of Shelby.
1872 Merchants National Bank vs. Ca
ruthers eJ 81.
1863 biandei x Co Us Nolan &c Lindsey,
1864 Thomas, admir-, vs. WiUu.
1867 G2yoso Gas Company vs. William
son.
1868 Rodgers Us Rodgers ct al.
1863 Merchants National Bank vs. Shee.
COG, Witherspoon s. Co ct al.
1910 Mic0u VS. EcoRn = L0oney.
ISL Gayos0 Gas Company vs Stewart.
1872 Eyueg vs. Davis.
1873 Rsimer VS. TsChudi.
1874 Reniro vs Crowley & Croaly.
1915 Sykes VS. Blake.
1876 WOlc0tt, Saith * Co vs. Dough.
eTty.
1877 Mayor and Aldermen Of Memphis
rs Graft,
1918 Same vs. Byrnes.
1879 Same vs. Cremer.
1880 Same VS. Dugan.
1881 Same We 3 sechag.
1882 Same vs. Ssma.
1888 Same VS. Baker.
1854 Mayer and Aldermen OF Memphis
vs. Cole.
1855 Same vs. Never.
1856 Same VS. Long.
1887 Same VS. Patton.
1888 Same VS. Cornell.
1883 Same vs. Cole.
1880 Rankhead Vs B0ughneF.
1891 Pickett, admir-, vs. Williams.
1892 Falls City Cement Co Vs Schultz.
1888 McGowsn vs. Clayton,
1894 Pickett, sim'r, ~ Williams.
1855 Cameo vs. Osppar0.
1886 FOlwell ys Cunningham & Heintz
1887 psyfui vs Smith.
1898 HsstiDd VI Wright.
1893 Bowen VS. Deltz and wife.
1900 Bond vs. Jackson.
1901 King, use, etc, rs Harvey.
1902 MCsby, receiver, vs. Eianse.
1865 MehenFy vs. Mitchell.
1904 Morton i Co vs. Clesves, adm'x.
1905 J0yner, trustee, etc, VS. Hiroh.
1900 L3genstein q Bro, vs. Gallaer.
1857 Commercial Bank OF Tennessee VS.
Garth.
l60S Briggs & Norton vs. Mackey & Co.
1909 st. Louis snd Memphis Packet Co
VS. Peres d Co.
IGl0 McCarty vs. Briggs.
CHANCERY COURT YIN. u. Smith,
LR0nceliOT.-The first case CT vester.
days calendar, Joyce va. Oieli, was
taken up as o O as Court convened.
This Deiug a case Of some important e.
aud likely to consume g good deal OF
time, the Court announced thSt no other
cases would be heard. After making up
the Jury and proceeding with the evil
d6nee, it Was found that ; very material
witness in the case was absent. TIE
complainant asked leave of the Court
for q continuance until the witness could
be produced, which was granted. Owing
to the announcement that there would
be no other business transacted except
the hearing Of the above mentioned
cause, the Court then adjourned until
this morning.
To-day viii be motion day, commence
ing with letter A.
The Clerk and Master will tsEe an &C.
cognt IN the case OF Page VS.. CONNER
cisl Bank.
Law CoURT-H S. Lee, Judge
This Court was engaged yesterday IN eX.
GINNING and signing bills OF exception,
etc. Court stands adjourned until Sat
-urdsy morning. A short session will be
held on thst day, for the purpose Of
finally disposing Of all the business re-
naming to be transacted this term. 1t
will then adjourn to Court IN course.
CRIMINAL COURT WDl Hunter, JyGgS.
The following cases are set for trial on
tomorrow In the above court;
Isl State vs. Frank Foley and John
Burns, robbery.
70 State vs Adam Dowdy, robbery.
los State VS. Adam Dowdy, breach q
truss.
1l5 State VS. Alfred Murray, larceny.
| III State vs. Dock Pearcs and MAUD
Cash, larceny, etc,
lis State VS. Thomas Neville, larceny.
il9 State vs. Thomas Neville, larceny.
| 122 State VS. Lewis Johnson ct al, rape.
i23 State vs. Charlotte Harrington, lar
ceny.
I2S Stale VS. Wm. Pearce, assault will
intent to kill.
As State vs. Neal Blackburn. murder.
Attorneys for the defence in the abov
stated cases, must be ia attendance.