a Bayley to Upon I hi atatement.sot attachor, but they“or the pro-re seems to erbeard theit waa pro-owe talking.. H. Boyiey, lican candi-end he wasttalor Bogan.jogan an ac-dinner wivn n»ruj -* -The as.ociatioc held at *£r.miles aouth of here, Sunday la.t, was a ane cess.TO»—3. M. EbT »nd MW M' ®°”eyWere Merritd an the I5th of Sept.LUt of Present. Presented to Mr. and Mrs. Eby.sinate the,on the qui jxipresaiou is jthan reality \ officers are jJones man-tely scrutin-iold are dis-Be Accaring—btenedn3uiteau has it he would j Lefend him,; information j • now turnsg in exag-1 jnd. When rney to-dayundoubtedly ,vised him to j ensie, be re* |Lo telegraph i of Chicago.! on his rela- I )rofided the , lira counsel, t iasy task, ad .ie to appear-1tu’s counsel. | r a word that; *ck. Guiteau delusion that :© and get a be acquitted.ana «»«• •Mr. and Mrs. W. D. Downey, Mr. endXTm A L. Downey and Mr. and Mrs.H Dimick, of Princeton-One JSsen s.l-'sis.— -3»;SHu...,,.r r,»ui...-S.SS.tS:. 0‘ r'“ci“”SI.IS?“V Francl*e« .il.e.• rSran.iran-.U. teMre‘.‘ Lou Powell, of Princeton-cako’l Miss Mima McFetridge, of Princeton-gl“.!;ilCAggri. Shaw, of St. Louis, Mo._t0Mi«eM3gSio Whiting, of Frsncisco-Whiting,of Francisco—col-%».'Sarah Hussey, of Francisco-tableUT VEnTO tXrt Dilday, ofFrencr-^SM fruit dish and cream; pUMrT Lou Burton, of Princeton-glass' bread plate and cream pitcher.1 MissP Jennie Patterson and W. H. Ben-s “dsrwrsrafgj-. -rS£‘SM;i' 'WAfMr. eud Mrs. James McFetridge,Francisco—set of glasB jelly stands.\fr« S B. Snow and Mtaa Jennie Pat-teraon, !If PHnceton-boipiet frem Floral Gem ereen house, Evansville.Fannie Mills* of Princeton—chromo.MU. Maggie and Mary Fentnss, ofPrinceton—doren napkins.7,741. John Holl Turpin* Gibson Circ'Elliott, Judge—A trfttor of an estate, si while the action wasagreed to submit thlt;agreeing tbftt, if tnlt; cepted by both, eaci coats thereof, but if c award, he should pa] pellant rejected the Ihecase to final jud*against the appellee costs, and this actu appellant to pay tl his agreement. Henot bad on demurthat he agreed to p individual fundi.complaint, as edr. • a ~A.ll owyf runthat appellant oia can not be inferredunu fcivr* ----only in his repreei was the agraemen frauds, because ncoriginal, independ of appelant. It w create or prevent kept his promise 1 default. His proi which the estate v demand was neceeiAprmta—trial pb6/82. Henry I man. On petuioi Elliott, Judge, from County Cum de novo does notrecord shows th been closed by ».was a subsequent diction. A bill c sary where the e the face of the dismiss and exc« is such an error.For the Dkmocbat.DpnartPdAn 11RUSHVlLhK,About four desolate theik'ia #r»n ntV