The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-12-09


being no substantial variation from the ties.
tlmouy as published on the last trial.
The case Is still on trial.
Adjourned.
Eourrr CouRr-Judo. Wvla.-Thls court
was engaged as follows yesterday
DIVORCED.
Henrietta Stewart VS.. James Stewart. This
10 au application for divorce fled by the wife,
the substance OF whose charges have alread y
been published In this paper. Adiyorce was
granted.
Usher vs.. Usher. This IL another appll-
cation for divorce, already published. The
plaintiff was allowed to file an amended bill.
B. F. TAFT Va. W. NJ. Slower. Injunction
granted restraining the defendant and his
auctioneers from dlsposlng Of certain mer-
chandlse at the plaintiffs store, on Pennsyl-
yania avenue, and restraining Mr.. Meade
from paying for said goods.
Tho Equity Court calendar will be called
this morning at IL o'clock, Of which fact at
torneys having cases on trial would do we'll
to notice.
CmcuIr COURT - Judge Carter. - This
court was occupied as follows yesterday;
Frizzell VS.. Sherry. This Is an action OF
Washington, above Georgetown, on tho
Falls road. The case turns upon the loca.
ton OF boundaries, aDd involves no legal
questions. Fendall-Jonos. The case was
not decided.
shlnn Va. Fletcher. Judgment by consent
for 1856.
Hutton VS.. Front Royal Limo Company.
Judgment for plaintiff In sS22.98.
Richards vs.. Corporation Of Washington.
Judgment by consent.
Judgments by default were entered Ia the
following cases; starkweather vs.. Jourdan;
Brown, Shcdd & Co. Va. Keller; Same vs..
Mccarthy; Hipo vs.. Boyd; Purdy VS.. West;
Curlett's son and Norris vs.. Hall; Lynch
VS.. Brown; Dickson & King vs.. Mackall;
Beckford vs.. Cooper ct al; Mason, assignee,
W. Cooper ct al; Harwitz vs.. Hall &
Davis; Mcdowell & Dickinson vs. Pearson;
French & Richardson VS.. Boswell; Muskcy,
Morrell & Co. vs., Miller; Lambert VS.: VII
llams, (undcr 18th rulcO Melloy & Smith
vs.. Richie, (under 18th rule;) Almon s.
Son VS.. Brown; Hine VS.. Boyd; Purdy VS..
West.
Tut vs.. Slowen. Order striking plea
from files, and Judgment by default.
Drakely, Fenton d Co. VS.. Emmett, (two
cases;) same action as In last case. Fisher
vs.. Shoemaker & Hertzog; same action.
Goodwin Brothers VS.. Barr. Judgment
confessed.
Lockery VS.. Bradford. A motion for a
Morsell VS.. Boss, (two cascs.) Fiat on a
scire tdcids 10 revive an old Judgment.
The case under the head Of "a plea Of
usury," reported few days since as "Bllss
vs.. Davis should have been entitled "H 8.
Davis vs.. Lewis ct al"
CASES TO-DAY.
The following cases are assigned for trial
to-day: Nos. 90, III, 100, 800, 300, 430, 229,
1888, 24l, 2s, CT, ~, 19l, $40 and G3 appeals.
Adjourned.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Wednssidy, December Q, ls69.-0n the motion
Of Mr.. Curtis, Henry Baldwin, IT,, esq, Of
Pennsylvania, was admitted to practice as
an attorney and counsellor of this court.
On motion of Mr.. Phillips, Charles Kor'
trecht, ESQ.,, of Tennessee, was Admitted to
practice as an attorney and counsellor OF thi:
court.
No. 90. William NJ. Harrington, plaintiff
in error, VS.. Rolfe s. Saunders. The argu.
ment OF this cause was concluded by Mr.. Is
r. Curtis, of counsel for the plaintiff In
error.
No. II. Samuel G. Morgan, appellant, VS..
the town of Bslolt. This cause was re,
argued by Mr.. Carpenter, OF counsel for the
appellant. No counsel appeared for the
appellee. ~
VS.. Tho United States. This cause was
argued by Mr.. Casserley, of counsel for the
plaintiff In error, and submitted on printed
argument by Mr.. Attorney General Hoar fol
the defendant In error.
No. 0. The New Orleans and Bayou Sara
Mall Company, appellant, vs.. Anthony Fer
nandez OF al. This cause was submitted or
printed argument by Mr.. Attorney General
lIoar, of counsel for the appellee. Mr.
Eyarts declined to present an argument fol
the appellant.
Adjourned until tomorrow at II o'clock.