Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-01-18
@@sE=s.lss.ssl.szz
LAW REPEATS.

CasHcery ceurt--- Chancellor ho-gas.
The cases set for hearing to-day are:
Kaufman vs. Wells.
Atkins vs.. Fuwikes.
Doyle vE. sage.
BO-gitup Us. klG-1.
HuIdAtusen ys. RuNaF.
IuElugtUu ". Z ElcmaStCr.
RoesCLer ~. Cohen.
Oliver vs. Mclean.
Mott ys AmIs.
Mclean vs.. Sic -eFu.
Herman vs.. Leopold.
Cherry vs. Taylor.
EIam rs. DGbOse.
Perry IS. Dickens.
Neely vs.. Mckinney.
Semmcs VS.. MaurouTt.
CaIu,hers vs.. Pos,0u.
Cash vs.. Ihw58f,
Lynn VS.. Smith.
A.sbrDJk Us. Brown.
RosCnSteiht VS. DIp56e.
Martin -. DuL
Wayuecke -. ! JE1-kss
Wallace IS. Price.
Si'imsu Vs. Titus.
UuiJu Bank ". TITUS.
Fletcher vs.. Hart.
Barry ". Greeu.
Stiilman vs. BiuG City las. Co.
k8ua vs.. Anderson.
EecA vs.. Walker
Hubert KS. EGgiEgtou.
Davis vs.. BuckuCr.
Miller vs. Shock.
Page vs.. Commercial Bank.
Tue solicitor having in possession the
papers in tae csss o. LagomarsinO -. La
gpmsrSiuo viii please return them 70 the
oil ,e OF the Clerk immediately
Chancellor Morgan delivered the follow
ing opinion in the Injunction case OF Burk
eli al. vs.. Bleckley st al:
Burk Ct al. vs.. BleGkiey ct u. This Is g
bill filed by Norton and Bur6, who claim
10 be justices Of the peace for the four
teenth civil district Of Shelby county, snC
upon which they ssS an injunction from
this court restraining the members q the
County Court from interfering with
them Us members Of The QU8rieriy COUri
OF the county.
They clajm to be justices By reason o
an election held in August. t55s, uuasr Ci-
rsction o. the then acting re r. rsr, sears
Among her allegations ia their blli, the y
state tnat Moore and y Hdli were appointed
Justices Of the peace log the Military Gov
ernOr, Johnson, ia 1864. sud that taeil
, Norton and BurS) election was held tC
i'll those offices which expired by reason
OF the end or military rule ia this StaEs
and that they are uOw the regular justice.
OF the Fourteenth Civil District.
To this bill, Cook, GFifhth and ElllSti
AK 10 bs made parties. claiming that they
are the Successors OF Moore and Hall, ele
Norton and Burk reply that COOK
Griffith and Elliott were elected under al
act Of the Legislature Of 1865. creating sis
additional justices OF the Fourteenth Civil
Di~,rict.
4 ere are many perpiex,ng questions
f,a Aaffs
have arisen FROM coudjcting legislation ID
the State, and perhaps lack OK proper
care IA ordering elections 10 I'LL vacancies
The Constitution allows two Justices FOL
every Civii stict, aud s'i,h power iH IA
Legislature to provide for additional as
tices in corporate towns. Under this pro-
vision OF the Constitution, he Legisis-
turs passed aD act IN 1867, creating six ad-
ditiOuai Justices for the Four5eeuth Dis
trjct. THIS act has, however, been re-
peaied.
Ths appointment OF civil officers 6y 4
Military Governor was ratified bY tbs
amended Cousyitu i0a OF 1875, and theiS
terms extended undl their successors
were regularly elecjcd. Ii their succes-
soFs were regularly elected, their terms
ara at end. See case OF Isball vs.. Farrls
-5th Caldweil-4-6.
All flVe OF the contesiing Justices. viz
Norton, Bunk, Cook, GrlE4i b. and Et. @.
claim TO be their Successors, aud vet ueiih-
er Of these parties. &ooro or Hall, are
made defendants TO this bill. There Is
another serious difficulty hat prese nts It.
self in this controversy; The act OF 1857,
enaeging The additional justices, hos been
repealed. II this reaesiing act c1u a09l-
ish additional offices OF the Justices
Of the Peace for the Four,eeugh District,
and tLiuis il can, hen there can be on y
three JUS Ices for Ibis disi siot-tsgo under
the ola law, and oHe other hy reason oi
the c0unty-seat being in this district, and
Yet there are eighs persons claiming the
0Eies
Ia the present attitude Of the case I dc.
cline granting the iu5unc ioa. / DO p0i
think IL the proper remedy. Ths evil can
only be remedied by an actioa ia the ma
ture OF gyo t0arrCHto. and, IN any event,
the proper parties must be before The
cosrt.
When It is determinO1 who are the
proper Justices for this district. there will
perhaps be no diliculty IS 10 their repre-
seutatiOn n the county Court, a. any rate
their remedy will be clear and distinct,
MORGAN, Chancellor, etc.
Iapuarv 1Tfh 1ETn