Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1845-06-26
LAW ITEMS.


ABOLITION MEErrNG.-SOme boys were indicted in
Rush county, Indiana, not long since for disturbing
fan Abolition meeting, where Hull was TO make a
fspeeeh. The jury acquitted them on the. ground that
ian Abolition meeting was not a lawful assemblage,
Fpeaceably assembled for a lawful purpose. The jury
considered themselves the Judges of the law and the
eyldence-BrookriHe American.
The jury were right in considering themselves
Judges Of the law and the evidence, but were in our
opinion wrong in their verdict. If it should be sus-
stained, it would establish a rhile slavery much worse
titan any black slavery that we know of.
CAUTION TO PATExrEEs.-It has been decided BY
Judge Nelson, as we learn from a communication in
the National InteRigencer, that if the proprietor Of a
new invention sells even one of his articles, before
he has taken out his patent, he thereby loses his ex-
elusive claim the sale is held to be an abandonment
of the invention to the public. This is a new decis-
9on-the opposite doctrine having been heretofore held
lat the Patent Office. The case in which the law was
declared by Judge Nelson was that Of Wilson vs..
Packard.
4 SUPREME COURT OF PA.-Hambright, late colec-
tor of tolls at Lancaster, Pa. was a defaulter for
zSlO,O75 50. He was appointed In 1889, and con-
stinued until Dec. 1Si4-gave new bonds annually.
}The question was, whether the s~ureties in the last
bond were liable for the whole amount of Hambright's
sdefalcation. The District Court decided that the sur
seties were answerable only for the amount due on the
Hast bond, and under this decision the Commonwealth
sobtained a Judgment Of S2,342 90. The Supreme
Court affirmed the judgment of the Court below.
] TERM AND TINE OF A SENTENCE DErrSED-A diff
sference of opinion has existed between the Board of
inspectors of the Missouri Penitcntiary, and the Les
asees of the same, as TO the meaning of the law con-
acerning the Imprisonment of convicts. The former
5contending that where a convict escapes from the
zprlson and is afterwards retaken, the time during
which he was at large is part of his term of impris-
Comment, and consequently, that the convict cannot be
zdetained beyond such term, although he may have ac-
Stually been confined within the prison during a short
fpart Of such term only, unless he is detained 10 be
stried for such escape. The Lessees. on the otter
Inland contended that the convict must actually serve
1out within the prison the time for which be was SEN
Stenced and that, consequently, if a convict makes
klis escape, and is afterwards retaken, the time during
(which he was at large is not to be computed or con-
Esidered as a part of his term of imprisonment. In
korder to test the question, a convict by the name of
Got Baker. who had escaped, and afterwards had been
Hretaken, was brought before Judge Scott, of the Su-
fpreme Court, on a writ of Ha6eas Corpus. The opin-
lion of Judge Scott conceded with that of the Lessees,
Eand the prisoner was remanded.
IMPORTANT DECISION UNDER THE BANKRUPT LAW.
s-We learn from the Richmond Enquirer, that in the
HUniied States Court for tile Fourth Circuit and East
Germ District of Virginia, Roger B. fancy, Chief JUS
Stice fancy of the Supreme Court, presiding, and Jas.
gid. Halyburton, Associate Judge. Defendant A, on
Gthe 2Oth IT January, lS42, executed a deed to P. and
&C., which was recorded in the Clerks Office of the
AHustings Court for the city of Richmond, on the 22d
Aday ofthe same month, conveying to them all the rtal
Esand personal property, stock N trade, debts, credits
Eand effects, of the said A. In trust, to secure certain
E~credItors therein mentioned, designated as creditors
Cot the first and second classes. A. p~etitioned on the
sl3th of August, 1912, TO be tiecreeda bankrupt; and
Con the nth September following, he was decreed a
BANKRUPT. The Court set aside the deed TO r. ana g.,
qupon the ground that it was made in contemplation of
Bankruptcy, and was a fraud upon the Bankrupt Law,
Eand ordered the trustees TO deliver the property, &C.,
gnow in their hands, 10 the assignee in bankreiabf,
Iand to render an account before one of the Commis-
ssioners of the Court, of all the property, which came
Ito their hands, or to the hands of either of them by
kvirtue of said deed. The defendant asked for an sp-
4peal, which was granted on the usual terms. The
bankrupt Act passed the 18th August, 1871, TO take
hefect on the lst February, l642t Under the decision
in the above case, in which a large amount is involv-
Ned, all deeds to secure the claims Of any particular
Ecreditors, executed between the 10Th August, 1S41,
land the list of February, 1912, are declared to be
Fraudulent, and must be set aside.