Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-03-10

LAGJ VIII lOSJ A1C tClhs IL - AlC AColSh
Of the Court to enforce SIS rigidly as pos
sible the last clause Of the Ihird Rule,
try, continue or dismiss"
1860 Sturgiss vsJaekson Insurance Com
pany.
ISL Potter VS. German National Bank.
ITO Findlay VS. Garvin.
l179 Smith VS. Levy.
1l47 Smith ct TX VS. Brinkley.
1856 McElrOy VS. Malone ex'tx.
1887 NJ d A Of III vs. Ryan.
1924 Patterson VS. Johnson i Williams.
1883 Jennings VS. HOugh.
1893 Morrison VS. Smith.
l404 NJ & A Of NJ VS. Rocco.
1908 Same VS. Church.
1906 Same VS. Ramsey.
l4I2 Same VS. O'D0nnell.
I4l6 Nolan vs. Beaumont.
1880 TrRbue We Cash, admir-,
1876 Barron vs. Wade,
I49S BrinkerhOf VS. ame
1889 Manning ct 81 w Wade.
l45i Montroy VS. Robertson, trustee ct al.
1859 Arnold VS. Trigg.
AGO McCullum, admir-, VS. Stewart Bro.
1889 Goodloe VS. ~SehoonOver, sdm'x.
l497 Johnson VS. PIttman ct al.
1868 Strauss, Lehman d Co vs. Jackson
ct al.
1910 Underwood, use, etc, VS. Poe nix
Ias. Co.
1911 Union Bank CT Tennessee vs. La
mar ct al.
1918 Stiles vs Andrews 4 Co.
1880 Tardy VS. Dill, adm'x.
1885 Irwin ct al VS. Dill, eX'X.
1887 Venable VS. Sslby.
I544 Clayton OF al VS. Blessing.
l549 Anderson d Gay VS. Walker.
1876 Johnson s Wight VS. Walt st al.
1877 Frank vs. Smell, Taylor Il Co.
1873 Taylor, Nee wen & slew VS. Roberts.
1893 WILLOWS VS. Levy.
1891 Memphis and Charleston Railroad
W. Munsford ct al.
300 State OF Tennessee, use, etc, VS.
MoseIy 81 al.
37I0 Chsmplin vs. Beaumont.
1873 R1fin ct al VS. Ferguson ct 81, mo-
ton.
271S Theme VS. Davis ct al, mandamus.
r d.
552 Nswhouse VS. Levick ct al, motion.
6Q2 Young VS. yaekel, motion.
6l5 Elliott vs. Cook, motion,
$40 Winters VS. Donovan ct al, motion.
Marcus j.. Wright vs. John D0nO-
van, motion.
CHANCERY COURT Hn1. II. Smith,
ChanceUOr.-The following DEGREES were
fled in this Court yesterday
Cooper VS. McGhee, final,
Watson vs. Marshall, demurrer over
ruled.
Notebooks vs. Brooks, cross bill dismissed.
Forsyth vs Williford, reference.
Pfemfert VS. Memphis German Savings
Institution, reference.
Jones We Sharp, refereBce.
The cases inserted below will be called
for trial to-day {
7S2 Bast VS. Clark.
1876 Same VS. same.
799 Watkins VS. Specht.
Sll Stanley VS. Bigger.
$40 Trowbridge v Horton.
S25 Finerty VS. Deshield.
S2l Sharp VS. Horton.
S27 Shelton VS. Parham.
$50 Anderson VS. Sellers.
S36 Williams VS. Shivers.
S3e Foster VS. Msydwell.
SAL Both VS. NJ & A of Memphis.
$50 Hart VS. Jamison.
S53 Cssb We Bond.
65l Dickens vs. Dickens.
S64 Shaw vs. Stillman.
S04 DOckery VS. Daniels.
sos Wicks VS. Moore.
CRIMINAL COURT. - VIM. Hunter,
ObuQe--l AiBuuleHL III the case OI Tie
State VS.. Tom Pruitt, on trial for muir
der, wss concluded yesterday. After the
charge Of the Court, the jury took the
case and retired to the jury room to de-
liberate upon q verdict, but up to six
O'Clock yesterday evening none had beer
rendered. No other business was trans
scted. To-day the case Of the 5 ate vs.
Fred. Rnsser, indicted for murder, viii
be taken up and tried,
SUPREME COURT OF TENEEssEE.-Ws
learn thai the court has ordered q specis.
term at Knoxville, to begin on the las
Monday Of March inst. This order hs'
bean made because the last term of the
court at Knoxville was not held anC
second, persons are ia Jail snd have beer
for a year or more, under conviction FOL
criminal Offenses; and unless a specia
term be held, will have to lie in Jail I'm
til next fall. l. is expected that thil
special term will cause q delay of thu
court at Brownsville for two or three
weeks in April next.