National Republican., 1876-06-08
THE COURTS.
EQrity Court-Judse wylis.

Freedman's Savings and Trust Company vs.
stephenson. Pro eonfesso VS.. defendants.
Brown. Pro eonfss.e VS. sna csrtaIn dsfsndpPnis vs.
Tanner VS.. Pickell Sale of east half of lot 70,
GeGrgetSWn' ordered frst, and, if necessary, east
Paris vs.. Ware. Pro eorJtssO Vs. certain de-
Bobe ys: Morse. Appearance of absent defend
Ramsey vs. Daniels. Pro eanfsssO for default
of answer.
Blgelow vs. Clark ct al Pro e0nfssso vs. GER
tain defendants.
Starr VS.. Starr. Motion oyerruled.
Squires VS.. Savoy. Bond of trustee approved.
Circuit cours-Judge Humphreys.
Lansburg Bro. VS.. Campbell. Condemnation
attached.
Dunbarrow ct al VS.. Lewis. Default.
Creswell ct al. VS.. Havenner. Default.
Freedmens' Savings Bank VS.. Smoot. Default
Benner VS.. Connolly Default.
O'Hare VS.. MeBlair. Default
affirmed.
Riley VS.. HilIeary ct ell; Default.
Curtin VS. Hatton. Default.
Sheckels VS.. Eslin. Default.
Creswell ct al VS.. Carson; Default.
Creswell ct al. VS.. Hall. Default
Colgate Co. vs.. Spalding. Default.
Colgate 90. VS.. Callahan. Default.
Marietta Chair Company VS.. Zimmerman. De-
Kirby Vs. Gettier. Default.
Russell VS.. Williams. Order Of publication.
smftSsoH AmdSR vs.; 1s T7EiHE Wills Default Sdeaaft
Price Price Fraitel vs. WeyL Default.
Bacon VS.. Boswell. Default.
White Bro vs. Stickney. Default.
Chatham VS.. Connolly. Default.
Chatham vs. Eslin. Default.
Sehafer VS.. Mussey. Default.
Ergood Co. VS.. Wilber ct al. Default.
Davis vs.. Barber. Default.
Schneider rs. Eastwood. Default.
Roose VS.. DeShields & Proctor: Default.
.,a McSalia Ca vs.. Narnum Farr Verdict for plain
F. S. T. Co. VS.. Kflbourn & Latta. The evil
denee having been submitted on both sides the
Court ordered jurors to be withdrawn and mis-
Brodies VS.. Buckley. Jury respited.
Xindes VS.. District of Columbia Stipulation
OF counsel for suggesting death of Blow, &C.
Criminal Court-Judgs Macarthur.
Henry 7. Edwards plead guilty to petit lar
Mr.. A. K. Browne said that himself and Mr..
Mcdonnell asked to withdraw from the case of
the United States VS.. John Frawner, giving as a
reason the following causes: For nearly two years
MS associate and himself were retained In this
case, case, at no little pecunisry sacrifice and with
Tended Frawner; the bail had been finally re-
duced to 5000, which he could not give; they
were still disposed and determined TO do ali
for their client in their power until cireum-
stances occurred on Tuesday, which injustice to
their client the couIt and themselves made this
request obligatory. The wife of the defendant
informed them that morning that she had visited
the prisoner with Mr.. Jordan, and it had been
tnOuSnt pest 10 associate MIN Win them In the
case, whom the prisoner thought could do more
and be of more influence than his present counsel
Without intending the slightest reflection or dis
respect to MIR. Jordan, and promising to render
him and his counsel outside Of their professional
capacity all the assistance and information in
their power, they asked his Honor to grant their
request.
MIR. Jordon said that Mrs. Frawner had visited
him, and said that Mr.. Frawner was dissatisfied
with his counsel and desired to retain him. On
visiting the prisoner and finding his wish the
same, he accepted the position Of counsel, and
notified the other attorneys that he had come into
the case.
His Honor excused the former counsel from
further service in the case, paying them a hatter-
ing compliment for the faithful manner in which
they had bestowed their time, labor and ability
in the cause.
Albert Leede will be found in the local columns