Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-02-29
second ChanesFy COurt-seotl, Chan
esEI0r.

HEGO1A AAAAE1Ak
esEIBr-
The will be concluded in tire
HaWley cases to-day and jury charged,
after which the State VS. Big Creek Turn
pike company and other cases from Mon
days calendar VIII be called.
First Cireuit COuKt-HeiAksil. Judge.
The case Of Clayton VS.. Conner q Rich
ardson was given 70 the jury just before
the sdjourning hour yesterday the trlal
having lasted nearly two days. Upon
motion of B. P. Anderson, Esq Mr.. W.
O. Belcher, of kentucky, WAS admitted 20
the roll of attorneys. The call Of the cal
endar reached 1703, case Of Sutton vs..
Welter Il Co which Is now on trial. To-
dsV's csIeudar contains Nos. I7O4, 1706,
I708, I712, ICES, 1714, 171e, IT2l, I7ZSs 1887,
f7sS, I743, I744, 1877, I74S, l750, 1851, 1888,
and 1854, a. published yesterday, and ad-
dititional cssss: 1865 City Of Memphis W
BaiIy: 1856 City Of Memphis VI Brearton;
1857 City Of demphis 70 Dsrmstadler;
1853 City Of Memphis vs Hicknse; 1853
City of Memphis VS. Hulme; 1850 City OF
Memphis vs. Hastings.
second CIreuit C0urt-HnIsey Judge.
To-day the following cases viii be cal
ed for trial: 1886 Kelly vs. Kelly 2523,
Houghton VS. Heron; 2429 DinsmOTe vs.
Hessig; 2429 Dinsmore VS. Myers; 24H
Eggers vs. Clark and wife; 24s2, Hines rs
Memphis and Ohio railrOsd company; 24sS
Ward Va SsversOn; 249O Duff vs. President
Noble Arch Of Tennessee Grove No. ] q.
A. o. D. 2499 Combs vs. ROssenvons; 2bl2
City Of Memphis vs. West; 25l7 City OF
Memphis vs Ackermsn 2530 City OF Mem
phis vs. LucRrius; 1882 City Of Memphis
vs. Burke; 1888 Hartley & GurIeY; 2586
City OF Memphis vs. PIs6sgis; 1887 City
OF Memphis VS. M~ontidonicO; 253S City Of
Memphis vs. Sardino; 2548 City Of Men,
| phis VS. Murphy; 2547 Moran vs. Wagon
or; 2555 Drueker & Co vs. kaufman; 25u
Block vs. Bloom; 2574 Ounce vs Bren;
2576 O'Hern VS. Quick; 1856 Green
vs. Sears; 1895 Moody VS. City Of
Memphis; 1886 Kelly vs. Kelly; 280l
Wagner vs. Warwick; 2605 Bsldridge
vs. Sears; 26l5, McDavits vs. Montgomery;
26l6 Berry w WsEgoner; 25l7 same vs.
same; 261 Baldridge rs Sears; 1926, 2627,
! 262S. 2230, 263I, 1882, 1888, 2S35, 1888, 2639,
284O. 264I, 264s, 1851, 1852, 1854, 1868, 2 sc,
2674, 1876. The styles OF the cases to which
| the above numbers refer have already besn
published. 2679, Heinrich vs. Fsldmsn
| $3.50 Plat 81 Co VI Mcdonald Il Wood
worth; 1851 ThurmOnd, Foster & Co vs.
Feldmsn; 1885 Rogsn Selden q Co vs.
| Captain P. ORness of steamer s. @ Day;
1893 Greenfield VI Collins; 2703 Orgill
| Crcs q Co VS. WaRgouer; 27l2, Sutton.
| Browne & Co q Lstdy q Go; ZIG Vssser
VS. Quinlaud; 2734 Wolf& Brother vs. Vso-
caro-; Z737, Bison VS. Fl zyersld & Co; 274S
| Tobin, Lynn & Co vs. LOsgue. 2745 Stone
vs. same; 2754 Lewis Matthews q Co VS.
same; 2755 Avery & Burnhsm vs. same
1852 Higgins VS. Green; 2762 HANNAH VS.
Shock; 27e3 Anthony vs. Freeman; 1885
/ Cox vs. Tate ct al; 2765 Shivers vs. VIII
lisms; 2767, Schaffsr vs. Thomas ct 81; 278s
Goldsby VS. Goldsby; 2759 ODOnnei1 vs
Frsime: 2770 Laski vs. Tennessee National
bank; 277I Lsski VS. Schneider; 2772 Rsdsr
VS. Winters; G773 Happsk VS. CAN'T ct al;
| 2774 Crowley VS. Williams 81 sl; 2776 Schu-
maker Va Mcclure; 2777 Taft VS. Irvine;
2773. stssmer MOllie Able VS. Herman CT
al; 27T9 Atlantic and Mississippi Steam
ship eOmpsny vs. city of Memphis; ESQ
Miller vs. Frsime The attorneys having
the papers in the case OF Cox VS. Pieksrd,
which has been appealed to the supreme
court, will gratefully oblige the clerk by
leaving them at his office.