National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-04-24
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court of tho United states.

WEDNESDAY, April %, 1879.
On motion of Mr.. Attorncy.Gcncral Devens, John
a. Loring, esq, of Boston, Mass. and Mr. John II.
Boolt, esq, san Francisco Cal, were admitted to
practice.
On motion of Mr.. John Van voorhis, Abraham X.
Parker, ESQ., of Potsdam, n. ", was admitted to
practice.
No 2iS. Gardner II. Colby ct al, executors, plain.
tits In error, VS.. George Reed. Argument continued
by Mr.. i. II. Abbott for plaintiffs IN error and by
Mr.. NJ. H. Carpenter for the defendant IN error and
concluded by Mr.. Il. H. Abbott for plaintiffs In
error
No. 2i5 Thomas NcM0nus ct OIL, appellants, vs.
The United states. Submitted by Mr. Thomas j.
Durant and Mr.. G. W. Horner for appellants, and
by Mr.. Assistant Attorney.Gcnerul Smith for up
pcllee.
No. 22s. The People OK rel The Pacific Mail
steamship Company, plaintiff In error, vs.. The com
missioner &c of the city and county Of New
York, Argued by Mr.. Austin G. Fox for plaintiff
In error No further argument desired by the
court
No 2l7 James S. Honsford, plaintiff In error, vs..
Robert "A. Thornton executor &c submitted by
Mr.. Samuel a; Miller for plaintiff In error, aud by
Mr.. W. A. McKenney for defendant In error.
No. 2ig. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com.
pany, plaintiff in error, VS.. Larkin Beall. Argued
by Mr. James A. Buchnn for plaintiff in error No
further argument desired BY the court.
No, PSI. The Washington Market Company, 0p-
pellant, VS.. James A. hoffman. Continued.
No. 252. The town of Mount Pleasant ct Ill.,, APP
pellants vs. Charles Beckwith No. 5T. The towns
Of Mount Pleasant and Caledonia, appellants, VS..
William w. Cornell ct nj, executors, &c. Argument
continued by Mr. William z. lynde for appelloes.
No. 253. Mrs. NJ. r. Burke, plaintiff in error, Us.
George $: Lacey for plaintiff in error, and by Mr..
Thomas l.. Bayne for defendants in error.
Adjourned until tomorrow, at twelve o'clock.
District Courts.
Supreme Court OF the Distrlct-Bond s. T. Luck.
Oft, constable, approved. III re W. T.. Woodbridge
projcctlcs for rifle cannon submitted. Shepherd
vs.. Brown; on argument.
Circuit Court-Justice Cox.-Appleman vs.. Arch
or. judgment by default. Applcman VS.: Wimsatt
default for costs Murtagh VS. district of Columbia
| jury out Burras vs. Washington Club; on trial.
Equity Court-Justlce Mac Arthur.-DeGrau VS.
VILE VS.. Murdoch sale finally ratified. Grant VS.
| District of Columbia; twenty days allowed for ex
70 % KEaeal " rn
| hue; sale ratified nis Corcoran Insurance Com
pany VS. Green; reference to Il. G. Lovcjoy to take
| testimony. Howard VS.. CaruSi on argument.
| ASSIGNMENTS FOR TODAY.
Supreme Court of the District-'No 8, Bacon VS.
Getticr; No II, Shepherd vs. Brown; No. 10, Pho
nix Mutual Life Insurance Company VS.. Grant; No
q, Rover VS.; McConyey; No. %, Williams VS.. Scott
No. %, Dcrham vs. Easily; No. 81. Bargy's estate
No %, sullivan VS.. Black; No 90, Howard VS.. Kelly
No. 80, Kelly vs. Rothwell; No. 80, Edwards VS.
Circuit Court--Justice Cox.-No. 2Ss, Lemont Va
Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company
No. 3Dl, LOcber VS.. Solomon ct al. No. 800, LOcbe
vs. Roessc ct al. No. BOG, Loeber vs. Solomon ct al.
No 800, Locbcr vs.. solomon ct al; No. 3OS, loebc
vs. solomon ct al; No. 800, Loeber VS.. Solomon c
al; No. 32S, Shehan vs. Reilly No. 1877 Bowc
VS., District of Columbia No. l2s, Rowzce VS.
District of Columbia; No 190 Fleming, use Of V:
District of Columbia No 25S, Oppenhemer VI
Maryman; No. 30, Brewster & Co. VS.. Baxter
No. 2S7, Ladinsus VS. Fraser; No. 800, Hall d Hum
VS.. Scanlon; No. 1908, Downing Il Brothervs. Killior
No. 81 Cragin ct al VS.. Dryer; No. 3l5, Cragin ct
VS.. smith; No. 32l, Burbridge VS.. Hall {
al No. 1922 Courtney VS.. Price No 32G, Shoemake
Il IIerzog VS.. Holiday; No. 1927, Cumpston vs.. Ke
, ly; No. $780, Archer VS.. Pratt; No 1888. Daley VI
Trunnell; No. 1886. Draper vs. Alexander; No. 49,
Walker VS.. DAILY No. $685. Richards vs.. Robinson
No. S39 Bonnell VS. Better; No. $40, Hutchinson "
| Alexander; No. 3il, Weiner rs. Riggs; No. 81
Hoover VS.. Handel ct al.
Equity Court-Justice MacArthur.-No. 80, Tul
ner VS.. Oliver No. 62 Hall VS.. zell No, 50, Sche
Ter VS.. Clarke; No. ST. Jackson VS.. Davis No. g.
Jones VS.. Pomphrcy: No. 20, National Metropolita
Bank vs. Johnson; No. 7Ol3, Hilton VS.. Gilmore
| No. 70h, Harding VS.. Mullins; No. II, Nation,
, Capital Insurance Company VS.. RUSSELL No.
! Seal vs.. Nailor; No 10, Scar VS.. Danaher; No.
Miller VS.. Hopkins.