Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-03-24

MUNICIPAL CoURT-Ge0. ". Woldr0nL
JRdge.-The judgments rendered in cases
decided in this Court yesterday are as
follows:
Whitman Bros vs. Pike ct al, judgment
for plaintiff, Sl292 so.
Tobacco, Fire and NJ irine Insurance
Company VS. Kendig, judgment for
plSintiff, 1928 20.
Graham VS. Steele, judgment for defend
ant, 81 so.
Hill, receiver, e.e, vs s.Fightmaster,
judgment for plaintiff, 500 so.
Howell VS. MeGrsth, judgment for plain
tiff, S1127 so.
Tennessee State Mutual, Fire Insurance
Company VS. Eakin, Judgment for
plaintiff, 1871 Sc.
Howell use, etc, VS. WinfOrd, Judgment
for plaintiff, $20S 90.
Ransom 6 Holhroek vs. Boiling & Co,
Judgment f0F plaintiff, S94 o..
Atherton vs. Bsadle, judgment for plain
tiff, Sis 90.
Collett vs. Finney, Judgment for defend
ant, $500 90.
The case of GreenIaw & Jones vs..
Cooke, was on trial when Court adjourn
ed. To-day tie same will be resumed
and dispossdof, Immediately after WHICH
the calendar inserted bslow will be called
for trial
1882 Mayor and Aldermen Of Memphis
VS. Morrison,
1874 Same vs. GEAyseH,
1875 Same vs Mentges.
1886 Same va Fitzpatrick.
1898 Calhoun VS. League ct al.
1901 Memphis City Railroad Company
SO Trigg.
1902 King Fs Merr.msn.
/ 1853 Black, Cameron q Co VS. fAttsISon
ct 81.
746 Wieble vs Schellenburn ct al.
Law COURT-H. s. Lee, Judqe.-In
this Court, yesterday, the trial of the
case Of Underwood We. Phes ak Insurance
Co, continued from Monday, was con-
claded ami the case given to the jury
vino brought in = verdict for plsiutih Is
the smsU0t of SI39S 90. The plaintiff
! in the case OF Stillmsn vs.. Bluff City
Insurance Co., took s nOR-suit. The
Court wss engaged in the trial of the
case OF Arnold vs.. Trigg when it adj
! ieurned. Tnis is an action brought By
plaintiff TO recover the amount due on q
promissOTy note which is alleged to have
been executed by the defendant, who
seeks TO evsde a recovery on the same
by introducing and establishing the plea
Of "nOn est fsctum." Under the recent
enactments OF the State Legislature,
both the plaintiff and defendant ara COM
petent witnesses in their own cause, and
ace )rdingly were, each in their proper
time, placed upon tbs witness stand, the
plaintiff Swearing that he sGDt the defend
ant sign The note sued OH while the de-
PENDANT s10Ore that He NEVER DID SIGN
sAIR NOTE. There seems TO be q question
Of VeraciEg iaV0yUeG IN this suit. To-day
the above case will be again taken up
and disposed OF. Then the regular cal
endar will be called, commencing with
1850, McCullum, Admir-, vs. Stewart d
BIO.
'CHANCERY COURT Vim. N. Smith,
GdRcetOr.-Resteidsyls calendar was
not entirely disposed OF. The csses re-
manning untried on the same will be
heard to-day. The DEGREES filed yester-
day are as follows:
Stllman VS. Bresn, sale get aside.
Meath VS. Porter, on appeal.
Miller VS. War acid, GnAI.
Mex Night VS. Dill, sale. z
Carnes VS. Carnes, resale.
Dickens VS. Dickens, dover.
Morrison vs. Morrison, divorce.
An scc-Rot is being taken in the Gay
oso Savings Institution case. Claimants
must file their claims at ones.
CRIMINAL COUNT. Vim. Hunter,
JGd0e.-The business transacted In this
Court yesterday is SIS follows:
State vs. Pugh; perjury, a nol pros. en-
tered.
State VS. Pugb; perjury, a not pros. en-
tered.
State vs. Gibbs; perjury, a mol pros. en-
tered.
State vs.. Majors I; perjury, a not pros.
entered.
State vs. Holmes larceny, a mol pros.
entered.
State vs Caudle; larceny, a not pros.
entered.
State vs. P~ritchard; larceny, 5 not pros.
entered.
The case of State VS.. Clark, charged
with larceny, was called up and the trial
proceeded with, bat owing TO the alb
Ssnce OF material witnesses, the trial Tad
to be continued Over.gntil this morning
II the above cases are concluded in time
to-day, the regular calendar will be re-
sumsd.