Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-01-29
LAW REPORTS.
FIrst Circuit Csurt--.IieIskelI, Jadgs.


On yesterday, the jury in the case Of
Hesthmsn VS. Bailey, returned YerdlcE
in favor of the plaintiff. The entire mo
ton docket was called.
The following are thu cases for Monday,
January 80. 1871:
II7O, Page, by next friend, vs. Schnei-
der; 39l, Hastings VS. Ball; 445, Cham Der-
lain vs. Beehn; 800, Mayor and Aldermen
of Memphis vs. CLARK; 476, Allen, use,
ETC., VS. Frazsr; 499, C.aybroOk vs. Rob
bins; 53l, Passmore VS. Dixon; 532, Mont
gomery vs. PUlliam; $50, First National
Bank vs. Grant & NOOs; 500, Laird vs.
FolWell; 569, Stone vs. Allen; 572, VIII
son VS. Allen; $50, Lacey & McGhee vs.
Brown; 5g8, Fizsr, administrator, vs.
Black, Estes & Co.; 400, Flemming ct al
League.
Sscond Circuit CsHrt-HaiseY, Judge.
The case of Dsan vs Jones is still on
trial, aud will be resumed on Tuesday
morning at 10 o'clock, and when com
Dlsted. the calendar as published for last
Friday will follow, with Nos. ZJzl and
2l74 specially set for said day.
Tomorrow will be regular motion day.
First ChaR0sFY CUaTt---aSrsaa, Chancellor
The case Of the Bank Of West Tennes-
see Is Marr, continued over from last
Saturday, WIS taken up by Special Chan-
cellor VIM. NJ. Smith yesterday. I5 viii
be resumed Monday morning. Judge H.
J. Morgan will take up the following
cases the same day, tO-Wit: III, Graham
VS. sherry: 10, Frank vs. Aiken; 72l, Roo-
ertsOn vs. Bascher; 722, Byrns rs Pope;
ia Bowers vs. Harrison; I25, Mill
lard vs. Rogers; 7S0, Galbreath vs.
Chaplin; 73l. Levy vs. DuBose; 755,
Allen vs. Petit; 739, Price VS. HayeT;
7S7. Raggio vs. Elmer; 739, Meux VS.
Storms; 74), Barry VS. Dunn; 74l, Garnett
vs. Holmes; 742, Ensley vs. Forsy yLhe; ff5,
GOOdhue vs. Wright; IA, Turner vs. Nlch-
oil: 746. Rheinhardt VS. Pollock; 747, War
nsr vs. Witt; 74S, Winter vs humphreys
74g. Daniel VS. Bennett; 750, Terry vs.
Bank OfVV est Tenn; 75l, Brooks vsPeyton;
752. Duffey vs. McGehee; 753, Randolph vs.
Trigg: 754. Prescott Yg Cohen; 100, Keno
VS. Able & Co; T56, PostOu vs. PostOn; Io1,
Bennett vs Hancock; 75oi Holland vs.
Edwards; 759, Blood & co vs Cohen 700,
Levi vs. Easter; 7Gl, Cockrell vs. ANDREWS;
762. Patton VS. Etdius; 753, Allen vs.
Dsering; 764 Dimmick vs. 'HUlburt; 100,
Cross vs. Topp; T66, ,EimOnds VS. Edmondsi
767. OrpilI vs. Beech; 76S, Trigg VS. stock
~. 769. LOgsrmarsino vs. Logarmarsino;
77O Mckinney vs. Oliver; III, Smith vs.
Grider; 772. Hallum VS. Wilson; ~, Rice
Us Price; IA, Avery vs. Warreni 40, Tat
vs. Tain adg6i 10 dE6Slla" V FCIL
bury; III, Greenlaw Us Woodbury.; rs,
Walker VS. Nelson; 779, Seessel vs
Hard wick; $50, Andrews vs. Brown; ;
ISL Cash vs. BazslwOOd; 7S2, Plummer
vs. Myers: 7s3, DeLoach VS. Richardson; /;
7s4. Tarver vs. Hall; 7S5. Turner. vs.
Turner; 7s6, Molloy vs. Heylins; 7S7,
| spencer VS. Jameson 7SS, MussO vs.
| Hackett; 759 Miller & YOunkln VS. Cole.
Criminal csurt-FllpplB, lHdgs.
This court was occupied all day in try
ing the case Of the State vs. John Moody,
/ indicted for larceny. The jury returned
a verdict Of not guilty as charged.
A FEW more patterns Of silks at nifty
/ cents aud upwsrd. Read B. LoWensteln
! & Bros. new advertisement.