Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-10-11
LAW REPORTS.



The county court met yesterday pursuant to
adjournment Most OF the business done was
in reference TO roads and accounts. Adjourned
to 10 O'Clock this morning.
second Circuit OOurt Halsey, Judge.
Jimmie GalIagber's case occupies tne Al
tenLlon of the Court aiI-aay yesterday. and 10
not let nnlsheds 1t VIII be res1mlsd thss
morning. ana, II Il Is disposed Of in time, the
IollO wing Cases Will be tiled:
I9, Hammerskoid We WILLIAMS q Co. eL 81 :
8S. Dent VS. HeaIey; $50, hf1as vs. rollock
SO, Caldwell VS. Blown, admrx; 3eI. Dssuisi
~ hsIrlsi 6SS' admr VS. Fairls;
Shepherd Ss7, Booth Va Fisher; $50, Bagsby
ct al VS. BAKER; 4u0, Walker q snydeG vs.
horvllle, Boone& Go; ~. Graves VS. Brooks;
Az, hailister We FlaheIty; 4l3, Jacobs q 10
vs. Williams et Al; 400, Walt & johnson VS.
6aeenwsia 406, h@y es vs. Leiiyere; 4E, Willis
VS. Mcmahon; 409, puvs VS. Lake; All, Tohn-
stOn VS. COOK SID, Mellon VS. Colby; 4i5. Hsr-
vey, guardian, VS. Perkins, admr; 4l6, HAr-
yey' ggsEd,an, rs Psrkins, samT Al Har-
12IK, Peiegrin vs. Memphis fanIs
tscAei Co; 423, q a o. MemphIs and "A D
Meath; AZ. Bali Va hinston; "a, Isnier W
Creighton; rs, Barker VS. Aarden ed als
~ Sonwoee Fuchs; 49, Wiiliam2
is. Taylor vs. Gibson; 4sS' Taompsvo VS. vs. H9od
437, Hanks VS. hiut AsU, SMITH vs. belle
man; al, spain 4 GormIesf VS. Moran Ct al;
Cossie5 vs. Misssssippi snd Tsnnssssseo 2s5i
company; %. Madden VS. Larkin 45l
same VS. same; 45S, IRWIN VS. Sells; 456. CUM,
mtDgs, edm'x, vs. Mallory; $50. " oods Va
Bowers; 400, " olc0tt, smith & Co. vs. Abie.
80, Muller vs. BARLEY; 46i, FoId VS. Baum,
admir-; 467i Cloth, surviving partner. VS. nigl
Humphrey q Co.; 472, Webster, Marsh q co
vs Hubbard = Co.; 4TS. ball VS. anderson ct
4l4, stockslager VS. ~Schoonovsr, adm,x
Express Company; as, schoono-
yer, admir- VS. Hayden
First Circuit COurt-Helskeil, Judge.
All the cases IN Yesterdays calendar were
allied. The following cases are on to-day:
ls5, United States us VS. s II Jones 81 81. oz 4
) ILL, admr vs. Emma Wright and m n /
Wright; z4S; John 7 Courtney vsTooL, Phillips
I 20 Sz,B EnIs exr. vs. Al Marines al; 81,
y kelIar vs. ID SaxUon; Sel, same; 30T, Oh Z
'lper VS. William Patterson ct al; 81, y b NH
ard vs. Nd A Of Memphis S54, Thomas Polk
Inv VIE vs. Heary Sopperwish; 30, John
abroad company; sos, blackwell James vs.
'nomAs v NIkerson; $40, j r Robinson W
y; SS, 4 h clam VS. Wv kobeTts: "a. n = ~
lerb an vs. Colonel 3I8. en- PatL-
= IHleksi 81, y Il Martin va Albert Thom-
s 5fS,J y smith VS. K Is Miller, admir-; go: Tan.
iesSee national bank use VS. M Il STILES. IN
my Ann Williamson VS. Il = McGbee3 SsI
, ,eafsz 4 i Love e Al; 81. Jaw
rs vs. II Elan; $50 TooL Phillips a 90 "
and Little Rock railroad companvs
usan McLelman VS. Equitable life ins. oo. |,
4 J ROPER admir-. vs. 4AFtiM Fttss 1
=, Bernard Cuneo vs. A Rajip ct Al;
., Cheatham VS. Bailey; al, Witt VS. Rosen9 (
eau, ct al ~, Davis vs. NJ. & Aux. Co: S8
az Memphis Gayoso Gas Co vs. j j Murphv
I'd others; -, Mosely vs. Robbins; ~. CLAW.
rock " Robbins; 4Ss. Bartlett vs. Putnam and
!; 40, Fender VS. WiiIiford; zS, McConneII ~
ittman and Nj; 49,, Page VS. Dickens: al
m9ur vs. Anderson; ass, Chiffon VS. Worsham: I
4 Mh1teniRn ct al VS. Creighton; 4e3, NASH !
Mchearny. 44. HeEse ct Al "a Harfnstaad- :
2, Thornton ct al Va Kelley; 46z. Nichols " {
Coz 46o, Mcconnell VS. White etaI. 3
Y 1regS VS. 1reen; AZ, Dashell VS. CurIln; as:
.tta es a. vs. Grace "a smith ct al VS. STRAIT.
am SO, Williams Ell al VI GnesL
Inc case OF the Memphis Gayoso Gas Com
ny ysJ.J. Murphy and Others, In which tbe =
Meges are laid a. S50O,D09, Is on the calendar y
: ts1Al IN the First Circuit Court to-day. over Y
70 nnnQred Witnesses have been mmon y
sttena on part OF tia plaintiff, and . Large