The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-11-24
The U. s. CIRCUIT COURT
FORMALLY ORGANIZED AND
READY FOR BUSINESS.
Important Cases Decided Yester DAY
1he Street Raj way Controversy
10 BE Taken Up Today.

The fail term Cf the United States
CT cult Court, Judge Howell Jack. on
presiding, was formally organic ed yes.
terdly. The following well known
gentlemen were selected as grand
jurors: r. B. Snowden, Napoleon
Hill, ]. S Day, M. L. Sslden, G. NJ.
Carroll, Frank White, W. w. Young,
of this city, and ]. w. Shaw, Somer-
vile; Richard Applebury, Randolph;
S. P. Barnard and James Myers, Gov
ington; Thos Smith and W. II. Fos-
ter, Ripley; John Douglass, Stanton !;
r, O. Blown and D. W. BIandop,
Hennipg; l. 7. Gray, Brownsville;
D.tcher Kerr, Dsncyville; B. W. Pry.
or, Raleigh; ID. L. Douglass, Wood
stock, aud S. r. Coleman, Gimp.
The Court appointed r. B. Snow den
as foreman. The following pet jury
was also impaneled: Louis Hanausr,
A. b. Goodbar, G. W. Fisher, ]. S.
Robinson, r. @. Graves, Joseph Tagg,
L. M. Dean, Victor r. Smith, A. Wat
kins, Henry Ritter, Reuben Shaw,
colored, and Marion Pickett, colored.
Schloss agar st Bachman was the
Fl st case called. Arguments were
made on motion for new trial, Lep
Lehman appearing for plaintiff and
I. B. Edgington for defendant. De.
csion reserved.
The following cases were dismissed
at PLAINTIFF costs: Smith VS.. Robert
toD, Leslie We. the Memphis and
Arkansas City Packet Company. Gal
vim vs., Kansas City, Springfield and
Memphis Ra lroad Company.
The csse OF Smith VS., McNeal was
argued at length by Judge Walker
for plaintiff and Judge CIaft for de-
PENDANT. Judgment for defendant.
A full report Of the points involved
will be found in another column.
The case Of James A. Loudon against
the Taxing District was called aud ar
gument begun, Judge Randolph for
plaintiff, Judge Walker for defendant.
Argument will be resumed at some
future DAY. The history of the case
is as follows: Loudon some time 10
1872 or 1873 paved certain streets of
the city under contract that provid-
ed for special tax to be paid by the
owners of property sbuting on the
streets paved. After the work was
done and the tax levied the Supreme
Court declared the levey void. Lou.
don brought suit against the city and
recovered judgment against the ty
oil ST., l57 81, and the courts manda-
unused the city to levy a special tax
to satisfy the judgment. After $lC,634
had been paid further payments were
interrupted by the law creating the
Taxing District. On November 20,
1884. Lnudon recovered judgment ia
the Federal Court for $3369 "a, and
April 20, 1886, had the old judgment
of $11,l57 81 reversed agains, the
Taxing ID strict. He now seeks
by his present proceedings to
compel the Taxing District to
levy tax to satisfy the balance due
him, about $4,000. The case will be
watched with interss', as it involves
legal points not hitherto decided.
The CLAIM is probably the only ont
stsndirg claim Of the old city debt
that t filled Of compromise.
AT 10 O'Clock this morning the street
railroad CAGES will be argued, on mo-
t on to remove back 10 the State
Courts, An imposing array of counsel
will appear in the case, and the court
room will doubtless be- crowded. The |
are of counsel on either
side of the famous controversy: Miller
& Gillian, Tom Turley, CAN'T & Pat
t-rson, Mo gan & Mac 'srlRnd, Frayssr
& SCI ggs, Taylor & Carroll, and S. P.