Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-06-24
LAW REPORTS.

CHANCERY COURT-WH. ". Smith,
(hanceHOr.-This Court met al L O'Clock
\ asterdav. Only a few of The easesOn the
calendar for the day were heard. Those
| Remaining undisposed of viii be called up
to-day At | O'Clock PM To which time
Court stands adjourned.
The iniunetiOns in the following keno
cases were Yesterday dissolved, and orders
made in accordance herewith, ro-Wit:
Alley vs. Pearne.
Ryan vs. Same.
| WeatherfOfd vs. Same.
| Cunningham vs. Same.
The following DEGREES wereRls0 mallc;
| Oliver vs. Stewart. Demurrer sustained.
| Ware vs. Kimmer. on funds.
| Provine VS. Stewart. Nesting title
| Chrisp VS. Barry. Reference.
MeCleary vs. Case. Reference. tf
| Waldran VS. Henry. Final.
| Pointer VsNMillard. Final.
| Collier Va Collier. Reference.
/ Johnson vs. Delpachis heirs. B1inurrer
oyeruled.
Drift Va Overton Hotel CO. Reference.
Hale VS. Wilson. Final. -
| Weller vs. Quimby. Reference,
Chancellor's decision IN the Keno cases:
L do not think the power OF municipal
| corporation 10 punish through their Fo-
lice Courts without an Indictment, and
that BY Jury, can now be questioned II
| would hardly be argued that She city az
| thsaities cannot arrest and punish parties
on Nv of an assault and battery in the
| strdSts; then why not arrest and PUNISH
parties guilty Of gaming? The late aet
c~onfers very great power upon the Ponce
| commissioners, and even ii that act is in
valid, the remedy is not in q court OF
| eouitv. Snch courts do not interfere with
| criminal proceedings, or quasi criminal
| proceeding. Hiliardr on Injunction,
pages l and 223. injunction dissolved.
Us. DISTRICT CoCRr, IN BANKErPTcY
t-CbaaOGg r.. Trigg, pTesidtR0.-Ihe par
| ticular attention OF attorneys, Dankrupts-
| and obposing creditors. Is called to a late
| order OF the District Judge, requiring
creditors filing specifications OF opposi-
ton, to give bond in the sum of $50. III
| opposition already hled by creditors VINO
| fail to give this bond, may be dismissed
| on motion of the bankrupt during the
present term Of this Court, and thereupOn
| their cases win proceed as though no OPP
| position had been entered -. g
Some fortyf0r fifty cases have been, fer
six or twelve months, on specifications,
and either the opposing creditors or the
| bankrupts should take immediate steps
to dispose Of them.
The District Court is still engaged in
| hearing the case OF United States VS.. 1900
bales sf cotton. The evidence has not yet
/ been completed, and the trial of the cause
viii probably continue Tor more than a
week.
LAW CoURT-H. s.. Lee, Judge.-Yester-
| DAYS calendar in this Court was called
and disposed OF to No. 2I12. Judgments
were rendered in the following eases;
York vs.. Paine. tsaI q
Stockley vs.. Collins.
Pending the trial of the case of Ruby vs..
Rogan, Court adjourned until this morn
ing. zs .si
If the above case is concluded in time,
the call of the regular calendar VIII be
resumed where left off. I
CIRCUIT oURr-G.W Reeves, Judge
This Court will convene, according TO
| adjournment, to-day at 9 o'clock, and
hear the closing argument in the case of
bWeaYer, trustee, VS.. Robinson 81 Jones.
AS socn assthe above case is submitted to
the Jury the m-Otiopadoelxet will tetaken
up and all motions entertained to which
parties may be entitled. I
MUNICIPAL CoURT.-G. " BaidrGa,
Judge. -0nIsra few cases ON yesterdays
calendar were finally disposed of in this
| Court Most. of the cases on the same
went over for various reasons to some
other day of the term. A forfeiture was
takenin the ease of the State vs.. Slagel,
against the defendant and his sureties.
In the case Of The State vi, KeAogg, the
Ecertiorarfwas dismissed, and5udemefIt Of
the court below affirmed. State VS.. Free
man. order. entered, making superceders
eaaisndaH for to-day, town: ,5
2455 o 1851 State YsAnnie Gallagher
$3.50 to 2540, State VS. Mag. Moody
3OI4 to 3018, state vs. r. Brown.
; 1928, State VS. J. w. Brown.