National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-05-15

Supreme Court of the Dslrict-McDaniol vs..
Wright; divided court; reargument ordered
Truesdale VS.. Austin; judgment below affirmed.
Richard n. Dyer, John II. Follon, Chris f. Munday
william W. Mohun, and Henry Johns, students,
applications for admission TO the bar were referred
TO the examining committee, Hunt VS.. Burche !;
decree below affirmed. Smith vs.. Chronicle Com
pany on hearing,
Circuit Court-Justicc Notwithstanding VS..
Coyle; plalntil called and suit dismissed. Donoho
VS.. Yandenbmrghi Judgment for, plaintiff for 500.
key VS.. Duffy verdict for plaintif Adams VS..
DUNCAN; Judgment for defendant. Smith Il Co.
vs.. White; verdict, for defendant. snowdcn vs.,
Janiier; death of plaintiff suggested. Gardner vs.
Sprague verdict for defendant Leary vs. Pclletier;
plaintiff called case dismissed: Peasely vs., Man
Sparks verdict for plaintiff for amount claimed.
McAnnally administrator, vs.. Washington City III.
hernia Benevolent Society |; on trial.
testament of Adolphus H. Pickrel was presented
for probate. Assent of heirs filed. VIII fully
proven and admitted to probate and record. The
executors Mary H. PiCkrel and Thomas L. Hume
qualified. viii ofBencdict NeR was admitted To-
probate upon consent of the heirs: Catherine Nell
Francis Salter; inventory of personal estate, re.
turned by administrator amounting to sol IS ;
order ofsale granted. The following accounts were
dian. First account of John G. Poor administrat tor
of tho estate of Timothy Lubey. Adjourned to
Friday next at eleven O'clock a. m.
Criminal COurt,-JustiCe lagner.--Hugh StTldcr
petit larceny, second oticnse on trial
ASSIGNMENTS FOR TODAY.
Supreme Court of the Dislrict.-No A, Painter
VS.. Drane; No, Az, Brown VS.. Dyer; No d, Cole
VS.. Reid; No. ~, BARLEY VS. Hebron No. So Man
son VS.. Manson No. 81, Schneider vs. Schneider;
No 50, Lansdale VS.. Smith No 81, secor VS..
Circuit Court--Justice MacArthur-No 81, Levi
vs. Cohen; No. II, Daniels vs.. Dickson No. 81,
May vs.. Jacobs No. 100, Leonard VS.. 1obln No.
1903 Emery VS.. the District Of Columbia; No los,
Swarlzclle Vi. wicks No. 40. DouRher VS.. Down
ing; No, AZ. Boston rs. Maxwell No. no Mon.
Dunield vs. Williams; No. l27, White vs.. johnson
No. 1870, MerrImRn vs., Jones No. 1907 Kelly VS..
| Downing No. l3l, Pierce vs. Nightingale; No. 1872
| Hill VS.. Ront aud wife; No 1874, Waring VS.. Con.
| nelly; No. l35 Bean VS. A. Il +, i, Il. Company
No 1856 Brewer VS.. Fulton ct al. No 1889, Washing
| ton Building and Manufacturing Company VS..
| spear; No. no. Smith Vs. Harper; No lll, Lewis
vs.. shes No. l46, Mcyen, Son co. vs., Hoover ct
| Hutchns; No, lGi, Shepherd VS., Lloyd No. l65,
KliAn ct Hl., trustees VS.. Freundi No. 1876, Wood
ward VS. Curry Il Bro; No. l72, Hurdle VS.. Talbot
No. l75. Smith vs. BeverIdgci No. l76, Clark VS.
| Johnson's administrator.
Criminal Court.-Justice Hagner.--Fanny Smith
| perjury Letha Matthews, perjury Isabella Down.
Eiih. "'''''' ''O'Ae '"''"' "''"' Wv" '"''"' ~
Equity Court-Justce MacArthur-No H. Mey
ers vs., Meyers No. IA, Robinson vs.. Robinson No
10, Rupert vs.. Capcrton: No. H. Pepper rs, shep,
| herd No. Is, Menger VS., Posoy No. 49, Bates VS.
| Plummer No -, Potomac Steamboat Company VS..
| Inland, &c, Steamboat Company; No 81, Potomac
| Steamboat Company vs.. Upper Potomac Steamboat
| Company No %, schellor VS. Clarke No, %
| Jackson VS., Davis No, "a, Gull VS.. Mckim No. 20
| ton Bank vs., Johnson No. "a, National Capital In
| SuranCe Company vs. Russell No. %, Seal VS.
NNllor; No, 30 Rear vs. Danaher No. 3d. Miller VS.
| Hopkins.