National Republican., 1880-11-04
District Courts.

surRr,E CoURT or THE DIsTMcr-CHIEFJvs
TICE CARTIER ASp JUSrCE WYLIE-Cnitcd sinici
w. Vessels; judgment below reversed aud now
trial granted The defendant was indicted foI
keeping gamng-tablc Tho statute required
that 1t should have devices for gaming purposes,
while the one m use was only common liable,
Tho court held that il did not come within The
meaning OF Ihe law, ana the party 'hpuld nave
dery house. Ramsay w. Daniels; argued and sub
mltcd.
CIRCUIT COURT. DIVISION No. l-JvsrIcE MAO
AETHuR,-Nuruer vs.. Hilton; Judgment ioi
plaintiff. Hoyt, use etc. y.. Sprugue; plaintiff
CulCd and Judgment Barber vs., LobsugcT same
action. United states, use Of Wilson, vs.. Walker
settled. Clark vs.. Pumphrcy; judgment by de
fault
CInculr CorRr, DIVISION No. 2--JusucE HAG.
SEG.-Burdette & Co. vs., sweet; Judgment 10y tie
Smith VS. PapsG judgment by default. Whytc vs.
Sickle judgment by default. Graves vs. AleNan-
der; Judgment by default. Graham y Aitkin vs..
Lindhemer judgment by default. District OF Go,
lumba, use, etc. vs. Brooke ct al; plaintiff called
and suit dismissed schrolh vs. Kolb; Judgment
by default,
referred to Justice lIaguer. Forr VI. Keyscr; re-
icrred to Justice Macarthur, Richardson VS..
Clarke dem urrer oyerruled, with leave TO answer.
Leonard VS.. Leonard VIII set aside ana tights OF
parties udjudlcUtcd. BoZzcl vs., Boll1ll; referred
to the auditor, WaGdy vs. Anderson rule on COM
plainant relurnGble November 10. ShocmaEcrNs.
Shoemaker sale confirmed and cause referred 10
the auditor. Charlton vs.. llinclinc sue confirmed
nis, Keys VS. Keys; sale confirmed nisi,
CRIMINAL COURT JUSTICE JAMES. William
Hughes, assault on Alice Burlinganc; jury out.
ASSIGNMENTS FOR TODAY.
SUPREME COURT or THE DISTRICT ClirF-J JUSTICE
CARTIER AND JuSucE WYLIE-No 70. Clark vs.
strong; 60, Gilmore W. Dcvn; rs, Berry vs. berry;
81, smith VS.. kcnueW g. Williamson vs.. Ihomp-
son: ST. GeTdGrt VS.. wheeler 50, Dwight VS. White;
81, FAINT vs., RisSs; s., JatlrNy vs.. Grant
CIRCUIT CouRr DIVISION No. l-JusTlCE MAC
ARTHUR. Appeal calendar; No. l59, United
Stutcs, uso OF Clark, vs. Costeo 100 Cnppy Of a! VS..
Walsh ct al Regular calendar: No. ~, Lighter
vs. Hubbard: H. Lewis trustee vs. Paige; l3 Lewis,
trustee Va. Jcirics; II, Ncle ys, BENDER ~ Lewis,
trustee, vs. Hayden ~, Holmes 4 60. vs.. Berry:
81. Barnes vs., Baltimore ( OHIO railroad company;
49, Garrett ~ Mans ". kcppc 4 MaShal %,
Ray L Whitney ". District Of Columbia; a., Bell
VS.. Baltimore * Ohio railroad company 81, pCWd
VS.. AckcTs executors; l3 lloll VS.. Culllnanc 90
Grinder vs.. Carusi, 81, Jennings ys. Baltimore *
Potomac railroad company ~ Brown Ct Gl. vs..
Co. vs. Peoples savings bank; o., lobin VS.,
Klelnschmidt; 60, Whcdon ct uX. W., barbour re-
cciyer Il, Osborn vs.. barbour, receiver 10, lo'
miller VS.. Inland * SeuboOrd CuSstiug company;
a. Wilson Vs. solter et ali 10, Lyons ys. District
OF Columbia.
CIRCUIT COURT. Division No 2-JusriCE HAG.
NER--Appenl cGlendor No. 16, D0umgUrtcn vs..
Western unio4 Telegraph company. Regular cGl-
S. Bonnell vs.. Better; l0d, D!ggius vs. Spraguc l6
Rufys, brown; IFS, Desmond vs., Baltimore & Po'
tOmac Railroad company; l9s Potomac Terra Coua
GoUdall ct all lS2, MoschowizS u Russell W.. Law
reucc; liO Erskine vs., Carty; ll2 Mshcr vs., Mary
naui lH Merrlck ct al, ", GiddingS 40, London
Plate Glass company ys. Holmes lls peHrug VS.,
Arthur 100, CRseyS executor vs.. Wlles; loo, Wood
vs.. Darlington et Rl.; laS Citizens National bank
VS. Ieymuu 100, Travis & Co. ". Thorn et IL;
l62, Crowley, udmuistraor VS. Brieni 1865, Missis-
sipp Central Railroad company, use ETC., vs., lay
loI.
EQUITY CCuRT-JUsrICE CoN,-No, 1, Watkins vs..
Hunter; g. Russ vs. Graham q, Mari vs. Brown; 10,
Gregory VS. Gregory; -, BurUhe vs.. Wulluch; Is,
| WuliaCh VS.. Burche; 10 Flanagan vs., snow; 49,
Caslner w, Miikiewiez; H. Nelson ys. MGync; is,
| Moore VS.. District Of Columba 10, Kelly VS., STU
ant
| CRIMINAL CoURT--JUsrlCE JAMEs.-William Pope,
| muir Ter of. +. Butler