The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-06
United states Circuit Court.

Before Hon. Judge Belts
The United States dQdtR James Collier late Collector Of
San Frdncsco.-The jury under the direction OF the
Judge and with the consent of both parties rendered
special verdict in this to the opinion Of the
Court This verdict leaves undetermined what amount
if any, due by Mr. Collier to the United States gov
eminent
TKuE Bus-The Grand Jury brought in bills of ndict
ment in the following =
The United States Charles Hami,ton.-Assault with
dangerous weapon.
ne Same rs. Wariom Taliant-IArceny on the high
seas.
III. Same rs. Alice Grey and Theresa Grey.-Passng
counterfeit coin.
The Same rs. John 7homas-Assault with dangerous
weapon.
The SAME Adolphus Doit-Stealing a letter from
Fost Office.
7he Same rs. Ddrid AHen.-Excess OF passengers
DECISION IN EQUITY.
MAY 5.-Ddrid Robins d9. Charles A. Davis and
others following is brief extract Of his Honor 8
decision in this case -
The defendants trustees of the Pensacola City Com
pany They appointed January 10, 1887, and then
took the title to the lands owned by the Pensacola Land
Company, and which had before been vested solely in
William Chase, trustee of that company. The de-
other associates, of the lands held by them in trust
The 5th of January, 1887 william H. Chase, for the
si,1ae in lie ciy of Pensacola and belonging to the
Pensacola Land Company to George H. Chase in fee, on
agreement with the latter that he should erect there
&c hotel. On the 18th OF October, 1886, the
unde standing that the above conveyance to be
made him, George f. Chase entered into contract
hotel for the price Of S3 00o to be paid him by George
L. Chase. The hotel was finished, but the plaintiff not
being supplied with funds, according to agreement
olnmed that be had been damaged TO the amount OF
about $50 GOO, which he seeks TO Of the de-
PENDANTS, alleging that the conveyance to Chase
not bona fde one but made to deceive him; that the
land reverted TO the defendants, and that the
tract really for the benefit Of the defendants
alone The court decided that the contract between
Robbins and George T. Chase personal between
the parties, and had relation TO any obligation or la
bility of the defendants. Tha. the defendant dill not
by any act statement of theirs, assented to by
them induce the complainant TO enter into the said
tract, or any other agreement understanding with
George H. Chase touching the erection Of the hotel and
that the said Chase had authority to bind the defen
the fulhment of agreement of his in the
premises That the complainant had full notice Of what
&. T. Cbases interest in the land really at the time
Of the contract That the transactions with g. E. Chase
made with him. the sole OF The land, and
that the defendants had notice claim upon them
therefor. That VIM II. Chase had full power to convey
the land to George Chase and that there sufficient
consideration for the to him. but that neither
VIM H. Chase VIM. b. Taylor had power to bind the
any agreement that the company the trustees should
whether no the complainant has proved that there
any fraud practised upon him, the defendants
not prove have shared in it, to have had notice of it
at the time Held therefore, MAT the complainant has
failed to establish any right to charge the defendants in
any way with the debt by him alleged to be due him. Bill
therefore dismissed, with costs.