Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-03-14
THE COURTS.

S~cS8Cs- SbcEuaJM WAS mOtiOu uhy III
this Court. The Jury, la the case Ct
Terry We. Rutland ct al, submitted Fri
day, brought in q verdict yesterday
morning for the defendants. This YER
diet, by agreement, was also entered up
in causes No. 1884, 1895, 1885 and 1887,
they being cases Of q like nature, involv-
ing the same principles and against the
came defendants.
The cases for trial Monday are given
below
1857 Harris vs. Mackey & Co. be q
1874 Pike ct al VS. Evans.
1884 Blackburn d Co VS. Brinkley.
1897 Hunt vs Wormeley ct al.
100 q D Northern Bank Of Kentucky
vs. Winn ct al.
lis Harris vs. Kellar ct al.
lis Same vs. same.
l72l Yates We Bankhead.
I725 Lea rs Hughes.
lT26 Stanton VS. Moore & Mitchell.
l724 Parker VS. Bseeher.
1871 White vs. Mullery, adm'x.
1882 Joiner vs Hersch.
1913 Tennessee State Mutual Life In
surance Company vs. Manual.
1875 MeGoughy VS. E akin ct al.
1885 Ssh!osFp ack VS. Heinrich. I
1877 Stanton st al We PAdgett.
1879 FIX vs. Z kin.
l744 kisg vs. Church ct al.
l745 Williamson vs Jones ct al.
l746 Smith VS. Jones.
1851 Burr s Co VS. Winn.
1853 GAlena ct al VS. League.
1855 Bowman ct al VS. Hardin.
1857 Hunt, admir-, vs. Dixon.
CRIMINAL COURT. - VIM. Huster,
Judge.-The ase OF the State vs. Tom.
Pruitt, convicted a few days ago Of vol
uotary m~anslaughter, came up yester-
day in this Court on motion for 8 new
trial. Oa motion of the Attorney Cane
raj the motion was continued until Sat-
UrJay next. A rule was then made
upon the defendant to have all affldavits
In the cause flied on or before Wednes
day next, in order to give the State an
opportunity to file counter affidavits be-
fore the final hearing of the motion.
b motion to qnash the indictments,
twenty-three in number, In the case of
the State vs.. Leonard, also came up and
was heard, but nc decision was rendered.
The calendar for the ensuing week is as
follows:
rs State VS. R1sser, murder.
- Same vs. Marie, /"
% same vs. Guthrie, larceny.
81 Same vs. REEVES,
80 Same vs. Meyer, 4"
AZ Same VS. Bedford, "
A Same vs. Ramsey,
As Same vs. Cosgrove, murder.
l Same vs. O'Hern, larceny.
AZ Same Vi Candies,
As Same VS. Holmes,
50 Same VS. Gibbs, perjury.
81 Same va Pugh,
IS Same VS. Pugh,
Sc Same vi Neighbors, |"
go Same vs. Pugh & Nelghbors, larceny.
50 Same vs. Clarl, larceny.
So Same vs. Ryan
90 Same VS. Cogswell, breach eff trust.
20 same Ss Reeves, laceny.
75 Same VS. buchanan, assault with in
tent to kill.
CHAECERY COURT VIM. III Smith,
CbanceuOT.-Cases set specially for hear
ing Monday, March 18Th, are as follows (:
so Shelton We Parham.
81 Stanley vs Biggar.
$50 Anderson vs. Sellars.
$50 Williams vs Shivers.
S3S Foster va MaydWslI.
Sil Booth vs. M. & A. OF NJ.
$50 Hart vs. Jamison.
S53 Cash VS. Bond.
S54 Dickens va Dickens.
S64 Shaw VS. Stillmsn.
S04 Dockery VS. Daniels.
sos Wicks vs Moore.
TAI Apperson VS. Luudy.
$50 Mcmillan vs Carlisle.
Law CoURT-H s. Lee, JUdge.-Yes-
terdsy being motion day In this Court,
the motion docket YVES taken up and
called through re gularly. A good many
orders and entries were made in the cases
brought up on motion. Most OF them,
however, were OF an interloeutOry ma
ture. The jury ia the case of Potter VS..
German National Bank, returned q YER
dict yesterday morning for the plaintiff
TO the amount of two hundred dollars.
Tue jury having the case OF Johnson VS..
Wicks came in yesterday evening, and
announced that they were still unable to
agree. The Court then discharged them
until Monday morning. Ga Monday the
regular calendar Of tine term, as pub
lished Wednesday, will be resumed, be-
ginning with the case OF Eindley vs..
Garvin, M. l170.