Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-10-29
INTERESTING SUIT.
The matter Of the administration on tie I
of George 4. Gardiner, deceased.


The Circuit Court was occupied during four
days last week in hearing the arguments Of
counsel upon an appeal from the judgment of
the Orphans Court, granting letters of admin
Samuel Casey, Treasurer of the United
States" upon the application of the United
States, representing themselves to be the
Largest creditors" of the said Gardiner.
It's known very generally, that, besides the
proceedings against Gardiner in the Criminal
Court the Government fled bills in chancery
here and in New York, TO vacate and annul
the award made by the board of commission
ers, and to reclaim the amount paid under it;
and to these ends enjoining certain funds and
stocks which had been deposited by Gardiner
with the house Of Corcoran d Riggs, in Wash
ington, and the Life and Trust Company, in
New York, respectively. These injunctions
were granted; and the funds in both places
are held by the depositors, subject to the final
DEGREES which may be rendered by the courts
The amount within this jurisdiction is under
stood to be somewhere about $4,000. 1t is
alleged by the creditors resisting the applica-
ton of the United States, that this sum is made
up in part by q sum of $4,000, or thereabout,
deposited by DIR. Gardiner long before the
making of the award; and that whatever dis
position may be made Of the residue which he
received from the Treasury under the award,
this sum of $4,000 stands upon distinct
ground.
From the developments made in the course
Of the examination by the committee on the
Judiciary of the House Of Representatives,
we should infer that this sum is part Of
the proceeds of the sale of one-fourth the claim
made about year before the award, to the
Messrs. Corwins and others. If this be so.
and the proceedings directed by the commits
sion TO be instituted against the gentlemen for
the whole amount of that one-fourth received
by Mr.. Corcoran for their use, should result in
that the same principle should be applied to
their contract with DIR. Gardiner. and that they
should reclaim so much Of the purchase money
as they can trace and identify. We do not
perceive how the two cases can be distinguish
ed, unless, indeed, upon the hypothesis that
the purchaser from DIR. Gardiner were his &C.
completes in the fraud. The claim of the
government, however, is, as we understand it,
the right TO make themselves defendants (by
their of6cer) as well as plaintiffs in the chancery
proceedings, and TO take the whole fund to the
exclusion of all rights whatever on the part Of
innocent parties, including all who contracted
with DIR. Gardiner on the faith of his title and
possessions under the award and judgment OF
the Commissioners. We observe in Mr.. Stan
toms report that a distinction is taken as re.
cognized by decisions in the Supreme Court Of
the United States, which seems 10 us well
founded in reason and justice, between those
who were parties to the award or claim directly
upon il, and those whose rights accrued sub.
sequently to the award and upon the faith Of il,
as a final judgment by tribunal of exclusive
jurisdiction. Certainly the judgments ofcourts
are worth very little, unless they carry with
them such a presumption as will authorize an
innocent person to deal upon the faith of their
validity. Ofthis class Of cases we take 10 be the
claim Of the counsel who defended DIR. Card.
ner, and who contracted with him upon the
faith Of the solemn judgment of the commits.
sion, whose awards were, by the terms of the
treaty, declared 10 be final and conclusive
However this may be, we should doubt the
policy as TO the administration of justice gene.
rally, Of denying TO party situated as Gar.
diner was, the right to use so much of the fund,
10 which he had title which was only roidaJle
and not cold, as might be absolutely necessary
TO enable him to make available his constitu.
tional right "to have counsel for his defense"
We have been led away from our immediate
purpose, however, which was to give TO the
public some account Of the questions now pend.
ing in this remarkable case. The great oues.
ton land it is one which is Of extensive inter
est) seems TO us to be whether in all cases Of
alleged public debtors dying intestate, the Gov
eminent, who has sued the alleged debtor in
his lifeti e, which suit is pending at bis DEATH
may cut the Gordian knot Of litigation by TAX
ing out letters Of administration in the name Of
one Of its officers, confess judgment TO itself
and so make short work Of all defences. IL anv
there be- and Of all counter interests wha,so-
ever. This is pretty serious pretension, az il
seems to us. But III is the law Of the Card.
ner case, we suppose II is the law Of the land
A variety Of legal questions, which, we pre-.
sumo, may be interesting to the gentlemen of
the long robe, we're discussed upon the appeal
which was taken by Messrs. Bradley and Car
, Isle, GARDENERS counsel in the criminal prose.
cution, and was argued, for the appellants. BY
Messrs. Chiffon and Lawrence, and. for the
United States, by Messrs Fendall and Redin.
We do not deem it necessary TO give The
whole Of the argument but, from the closing
argument Of Mr.. Lawrence, which il seemed
10 be conceded fairly stated the propositions
on the part OF the Government, IL MAY no
readily seen upon what grounds the respective
,.rt;oo mt THAR claims M oopr,o yyo do -.