Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-10-30
LAW
MunlcinaI ceurs...Iudae FOute.

NA9NtkAEGN WI S&1a1 11NNa
The following business was transacted
yesterday:
IN the ease Of the State W. Weatherbee,
unlawful retailing, the demurrer 10 the
plea In abatement, flied by the defendant,
was sustained by the Court. 1t was agreed
between counsel thas II verdict Of guilty
should be returned by the jury, from
which Judgment the defendant appealed
to the Supreme Court.
IN the case Of the State VS.. NJ. Foley
extortiOn in onice-the jury returned a
verdict OF guilty. Nc order, as yet, made
by the Court.
In the case OF the State vs.. j.. Rawlings.
larceny, the jury returned a verdict OF
guilty and the punishment fixed at one
years Imprisonment in the penitentiary.
In the case of the State VS.. Hayes, Par
ker ~ Workman, selling unwholesome
provisions, the jury returned a verdict of
guilty. A new trial was granted by the
Court.
Ii the case of the State VS.. Beaumont
and Simons, permitting the Keeping OF
gaming house for q consideration, g YER
diet of not guilty was returned by tho
Jury.
In the case of the State VS.. Smith, fail
ing TO make return and report as required
by law, a verdict of not guilty was re-
turned by the jury.
A1TAHN "a nc AAibNAbl h1l- All nv
tions for new trials and other motions
will be heard.
Shelby Circuit COurt---Iudge Reeves.
The following judgments were taken
yesterday:
Myers & Co. VS.. Johl, verdict for defend
ant Oh plea of bankruptcy.
Plimpton VS.. Cogswell, Judgment for
plaintiff, $3.50.
Wilson VS.. Pope, judgment for defend
ant.
Cash VS.. Bolton ct al, Judgment for
plaintiff, S25S 81.
Sale vs.. Hayes ct al, Judgment for
plaintiff, 1916.
Slate vs.. Smith, judgment below af
firmed.
Taylor vs.. Hutchinson, judgement fol-
plaintiff, one cent.
Polk vs.. Edwards, suit dismissed.
Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Go.
VS.. Hughes, Judgment for plaintiff, $500.
The cases set for trial to-day are as fol-
lows.
II3-Weaver VS.. Fowlkes ct al.
l5S-Herron vs.. CarrOway.
I65-Simon & Co. vs.. WOlh.
l72-HOusjan vs.. Bond.
II3-Hawley VS.. Keane.
I74-Randall vs.. Memphis and Charleston
Railroad Company.
ikb-CdllONaN vs. 1Opp.
l7S-PeytOn vs.. Heron, admir-.
IoJ-Kinney, e~Xecutrix, vs.. Clayton.
IS2-Barldnd VS.. Hitzfisld.
IS4-Hack vs.. Shnltz.
lS5-Memphis and Charleston Railroad
Co. vs.. Patrick ct al.
Is7-AlstOn VS.. Hack.
lS9-Massay ". Park.
lgI-Ward vs.. Dixon et al.
i94-MoOre ct al. vs.. StOvall.
i95-Brown -. Nsyills, ct al.
I97-Tigh, g'n, VS.. Price.
307-SheltOu vs.. Chambers.
z0s-Weller, ct al. vs.. Elliott.
3i0-CaGHpbeIl vs.. Arnold. .
2lj-Duu vs.. Saunders.
2lo-IIerTon ". Young.
2ZJ-Strattou vs.. Hayden.
22j-Jones vs.. barnes.
2Z7-keIchum VS.. Tobin. Lynn & Co. =
250-W atson, trustee, VS.. Wilkins.
23O-MOOney vs.. Fife.
2]}-Garr, ct al. ". Lewis, Ct al.
237-Carhart & BRO. VS.. Walt, ct al. b
239-Tomlin, ct al. VS.. Hart u al.
2+0-Allen vs.. B0yt.
24l-Blades VS.. Shepherd, Ell al.
245-Plummer, use, etc. vs.. Hawley.
47-Aydlett, use, etc. vs.. Dickens.
250-Smith vs.. Cole.
253-Walt VS.. Jones.
295-Brown, Lillard & Co. VS.. Toof, Phil
fps 4 co.
25s-Mon:gQmery vs.. 4. 4 NJ. S. $. Co.
2j91Mills VS.. Bond.
6O-Sherman rs. Winters.