National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-12-16


SUPREME CouRT OF THE DIsTRIcT-CHiEF-JUsTIC
CARTIER AND JUSTICES HAGNER AND JAMlS.-M
A. Dauphin VS. Postmastcr-Gencral ID. NJ Key
hearing on motion for Injunction; argument not
concluded
CIRCUIT CoURT No. l-JusrIcE wYLIE.-Strong
VS.. District of Columbia; trial in progress.
CIRCUIT COURT No. 2-JusTGcE Cox.-Childs vs.
Marks ct al; nolle pros. Totem VS.. Rich & Bro.
verdict for plaintiff for $3.50 aud costs. 0Neal ct
H. VS. District of Columbia; oil trial.
EouITY JUSTICE MACA RTHUR.-Botc VS..
Langley; rights of parties adjusted Smith VS..
Smith; divorce granted. Queen VS. Brooks ct al;
commission appointed TO select guardian nd litem
Cook VS.. Cook: bill aud cross bill dismissed Shee-
han VS.. Sheehan ct al pro conlcsso against G. Shce
han; reference TO auditor. Barbour VS.. Nnylor
sale ordered. and d. orc. Callaghan appointed
trustee. Bryan VS.. Edwards; sale ordered. Bowen
VS.. Il. S. " 4. Co.; auditors report confirmed and
judgment for defcn dant. Campbell VS.. Kennedy
demurrer sustained.
ASSIGNMENTS FOR TO-DAY.
SUPREME Court OF THE DisTRIcr-CHIEF. JUSTICE
CARTIER AND JUSTICES JAMES AND HAGSER.-No
-, Dauphin VS.. Key; lac, United States vs. Stokes
AZ United States VS.. Perkins; 1876, Alexander "
District of Columbia; 1888, Washington Brick Ma
chine Company VS.. Griffin; 1859. Connolly VS.. Lnu
renee; 100, United States VS.. J. NJ. W. Stone; 16l,
Strong vs. Patent ONCE; u, United States vs. James
50. National Bank of the Republic vs.. Cook. col
lector.
CIRCUIT COURT No. l-JUsTIcE WYLIE-No 105.
Wood q 60. vs.. Grahami.e " Trinidad Asphalt PAY.
ing Company; III, Adams vs. District of Columbia;
10 Sholan VS.. Reilly; 200. Spads VS.. Cooley; 297
Wolf Curtis VS.. Augenstein; 30l. Lynch ct ux. vs.
District of ColumblN 8i7. Mnkely VS. Cottrell Bros;
3jl Matthews, administrators, VS.. Baldwin or ali
$50 London 4 Manchester Plate-Glass Company,
limited, VS.. Holmes; 37j Chapline vs. Taylor 3Ol,
Wood Darlington ct al; 423, Polkinhorn vs. Dyer
ct al: 427 Parker VS.. McChesney; 1876, Wall VS. Rob.
inson i39. Kennebec Ice Company VS., Inland Il
Seaboard CoNsting Company; AL, lieriurth vs. Cor
poratlon oil Washington; di3 Washington vs. Clark;
li5, Seal vs.. Naor 4i7. United States vs. Nation
Ct al. 49, Lanahan VS.. Young ct ali 45l. smith Y
Wmsatt VS.. Long ct a. garnshecs; 455, Petit &
Drip VS.. Brown; ij7 Seldner Il Son VS.. Biuber ct
al; 46S, Holmes VS.. Kirk; d67, Basshor & Co. vs.,
Hill; 400. Stanton VS.. WrOe.
CIRCUIT COURT No. 2-JUsTICE CoX.-No. 81, Strong
VS. District of Columbia g6, Hyatt VS.. Hyatt; 89l.
Metzerolt & Co. VS. Wmsatt; 2j2, Ross vs. Burgess ct
al; 2j6, Washington Market Company vs.. Fahey; 2bS
Clark vs. Garges IL Bro. 260, Shea VS.. Smith; 2G2,
Van Riswick VS.. Hamink; 2Gi, Shea VS. Smith /;
.266 Rupprecht & Co. VS.. Worch 26S, Cahill VS.. Wit
mcr ct al; 30 Ryan vs. Dorsey 27G, Smith, by next
friend vs. Douglass; 27S Potomac Terra Gotta
Companyvs Shepherds $50, Howard Bankvs. Good
all.
Equity CouRT-JusrIcE MAcAETnUR:-No. 82,
Twombly vs.. Randall; 81, Smith VS.. Wright 30,
Laddie VS.. Mangum; 80, Hoge VS., Carroll;2 81 Young
vs. Duval; -, Burch VS.. Wallnch & Wallach VS..
Burch; 49, Cashier VS., Lang; 81 Shaw VS.. Bassett;
Us; Cowman VS.. CowmGn; 80, Lowe vs. Zant2lnger.