Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-06-27
LAW REPORTS.

LAW CoURT-H. s.. Lee, ,Judge.-Tha
motion docket in this Court was called
and disposed of yesterday morning, after
which the closing argument in the case of
Ruby Us. Rogan, admir-, was opened and
concluded late in the day. The case was
then submitted to the Jury, but no YER
dict as yet. Calendar for Monday, tO-wit:
2ll3 Wicks VS. Howard.
zIl6 Garnhardt VS. Merritt ct al.
2ll7 Connolly, use, etc, vs. Larkin ct al.
&CO.
2ll9 Miller VS. Ray q Sears.
Zlz0 burnley VS. TOpp.
2l22 Schmidt vs. Kahn.
2l23 Blaekman vs. Topp.
2l24 wilkins ct al VS. McGrath.
2I26 While, sur par, vs. Parker.
IL Brinkley vs. Hopkins, admir-.
2l2s De Ford & Co vs. Noryill, Boon & co.
2l29 O'Connor vs. MeLaeudy etal.
2lS0 Tyler vs. Elliott.
2l3l Warner rs Watering.
2lS2 Madigan VS. Winters.
Zl33 BOrryzuski vs. Creighton ct al.
2lS4 Foster, use, etc, vs. Swan d. $.
2135 Peres & Co vs. Ehrlick.
2l36 Beattus d Co VS. Cpham.
2l31 Temple vs. Lewis.
obs Dickman, Burnett & Co W. Roberts.
2l3S Edison VS. Mohrstadt.
2l4e Gibson & Co vs. Gilleuwater q Hay
ME.
PA Gibson & Co vs. CLEARWATER & Hay
ME.
2l42 Lewis ct al VS. Leftwich ct al.
3I43 Same rs same.
2l44 Burford vs. Holmes.
2I45 Bethel VS. Hammond.
2l46 Anderson, admir-, vs. Coleman ct FL.
2l47 Fox VS. Taylor. McEwen & Blew.
2l4S Webster VS. Isbell.
zl49 Haynes, use, etc, IS Shelton, Jones
& Co.
2l50 Case VS. Avery.
2l5l SURE & Co VS. Hook.
2152 Saltmarsh VS. Winters.
2l53 Williamson vs. Brinkley.
2l54 Same vs. same.
2l55 Williamson vs. same.
2l57 Cochrane VS. Wright.
2l5S Jenkins ct al VS. Morgan.
2l59 Lewis, Matthews & Co vs. Steele.
2l60 Pittman Bros VS. Kelly ct al
2l6I Metcalf ct al vs. Quinn.
2l62 Same VS. Burns.
2l63 Same VS. Raidy.
2l64 Same vs. Canaday.
2I65 Temple VS. Winters.
2I66 Council, sur par. vS Bickford.
2l67 Young VS. Grider.
2l6S Bates vs. Welch.
2l69 Smith vs. Armstrong ii al.
2l70 Rogers VS. Fightmaster.
PHI Mason VS. Topp ct al.
PIP Johnson VS. Jones.
2l73 Claybrook & Williams Vs. Grant.
2l4 Collins VS. Mcknight ct al.
2l75 Glen and wife vs. Pittman et al.
2l76 M&CR r Co. vs. Lewis, Matthews
& Co.
2l77 Williams vs. Hudnall.
2t7S Bridgeforth vs. Pickett.
2l79 Same VS. same.
2lS0 Woodward, trustee, " Jones.
1853 NJ and AcfM vs. Charch.
1926 GOepel VS. same.
l9u Yerger Il Sale v same.
81 Seaman VS. smell, Taylor NCn.
2lSl Gore & Mcclure vs. Black.
2Is2 Harrison vs. Wolcott, Smith ( Co.
PISS Anderson, Gay & Bugher vs. Rankin
& Co. $40
2ls4 Partee & Harbcrt IS Anderson. Gav
* Bugher.
2isG Herman " HiHchic.
PISS Thompson Us Marley.
2lS9 StOValI VS. Taylor.
2l9O Aydlett ct nj, surpar, vs. T~rradwaiL.
2I92 KimbrOugh vs. Mayor AMI Aldermeu
of Memphis.
2lg2 Hudson vs. Martin.
2I93 Bidwell vs. Swavne.
2I94 wilkins rs Seaman.
2l95 Resented & Yolkert W barrett II al
2lS7 Newton Ford q Co " King 81 nj.
2l9S StOckley Va Armstrong.
2l99 Withers W Hickey.
POO Cummings ct al vs. Swan 90 Al.
CIRCUIT COURT-G. ". ReereS. Jedge.-
This Court convened al the usual hour I
yesterday morning and resumed the trial
of the case of Fox vs. BrannOn. which
engaged the Court up to I O'Clock pm.
Upon the case being given 10 the Jury,
they returned a verdict for the defendant.
Some two or three other cases were dis
posed of by the Jury. Those remaining
on yesterdays calendar were continued
over until Monday, and are included IN
the following calendar, tO-wit;
267 Moore rs PattisOn.
III Cockev CannOvau Ell al,
2S7 State, use, etc VS. Allen ct al.
29l Kelley vs. Louisville and Nashville
Railroad Company.
292 DuBose VS. Leonard.
293 Merchants National Bank v Wng-
goner ct al
24 Same vs. same.
296 BOothe IS Stanton and Moore.
297 Miller vs. Lewis.
POS Saunders vs. Duff.
299 Paterson vs. Dickens.
202 HaFrigan VS. Battelle.
304 Mcdonald vs. sherman ct gt.
305 Adams, use, VS. Russell.
BOZ Johnson VS. Boxhorne.
30S Same vs. Hallum.
80 Madden VS. Cleveland.
3ll Phillips rs Sehring.
BIS Sneed rs Sneed.
314 Thomas VS. Person 81 u.
BIG owen, administrator. ~ A~hbingtDs.
319 State VS. Chambers.
800 Haniey VS. Davis ct al.
}2l Caldwell VS. Hardin. i
}23 Hillman Bros VS. Slough - Al.
"a Young IS Grider 81 N.
}2j Cole VS. Waldron etaL Z
ZIG Same VS. Street ct al.
rs ISard vs. BeusdOrf ct al. ]
80 Spencer VS. Brewster. l
80 Johnson VS. Cook. I
CRIMINAL COCRT.-H. f.. Hldis9H, {
Jgdge.-There were only two cases tried
II this Court yesterday, to-Wit: 1
State VS.. 4. Smith tcOloredl, indicted !
or larceny; verdict, " Not guilty." :
State VS.. Dan. Pettis (coloredL. indicted r
or larceny; verdict, "Guilty," and pun :
fixed at three wears imprison !
aent in the -penitentisrv.
The following is the calendar for tie
week beginning Monday, jane 18th: ;
90 state Us. VIM. Robinson, malicious =
shooting. I
W state vs. VIM. Henry, hOtgsebrpaking y
o. Same, larceny. {
Wm. Robinson, larceny. "
p Johnson Hunnjeut, larceny. /.
26 Munroe Bolton, housebrea5- q
% state " Archie HuSe, murder. d
30 Lot Lumkin, larceny. g
- John Williams, housebreak- II
my. b
y State rs Charles johnson, larceny.
IS Brit johnson, larceny h
- Henry wood, murder. d.
IS Louis Street. r
- Henry Park, larceny. T
II AdolphusThQmpson ,larQaay. sc
= Silas Weaver, larceny. ia
a Same, larceny.
g Henry Park, larceny. r..
. AidolphusThompson ,iarreuy ~
o . EOais Givens. murder. ~
9 George Washington. larceny. ~
: charles Johnson, larceny. =
a SilaS Paine, larceny. -
% John Osborne, larceny. T.
= Pierce Mitchell, larceny.
q " Hilliard Anderson, larceny, IA
; " VIM. Henderson, LARCENY. -
Attorneys for any of the above defend -
rs must be ia attendance, as the eases -,
III be tried with9ut fail. ~ IL
-dasI IhlItts.eItIi ON of