The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-01-17

'SAAA AHtA9 1901.
his court was in session at the usual
hour, and proceeded to call over the calen-
oar. Bot As counsel were not ready on both
sides in any case, after the entire calendar
had been called over, the court assured tho
members Of the Bar, that the next call there
Of would be peremptory, and that counsel
must be ready, or their case would be psss-
ed for the term.
Mr.. Brewster Plaintiff in Error against
Mr.. Wakefield Defendant in Error--was t.
Ken up by agreement, and argued before the
court, by II. R. Bigelow, Esq, for Plaintiff
in Error, and NJ. E. Ames, Esq, for Defend
ant in Error.
The main point in this case is one of in
terest to the business men, and is this:
Whether apromissory note made payable
at time certain, bearing interest at speci-
ned rate, greater than the rate fixed by law
in the absence of an express contract in vri-
ting, continues to bear interest at the speci-
he'd rate after its maturity, or only draws
interest after that time at the rate fixed bv
statute. The case was submitted upon arpu-
ment, and the opinion to be declared hereaf.
ter.
The following named gentlemen were du-
ring the forenoon on motion, admitted menu
oers OF the Bar, and sworn in. Jno. A.
Willard, s. L. Luce, Vim. A. Spencer, Jas.
b. Young, w. 8. Heath, Henry A. Part
ridge, Willis G. Butler, VIM. G. Thomp-
son.
Before adjournment the court treasured
the members of Bar, that on tomorrow the
calendar would be called over, and cases
disposed Of in their order, and if counsel were
not present and ready for argument when
their cases were called, the cases would be
passed by for the term.
Adjourned to 18th inst, 10 A. NJ.
January Is, 1857.
The first business transacted bv tho
court was decision on the motion bv de-
fendant in error, to dismiss the writ of er-
ror in &c J. W. Bass & Co., Plaintiffs in Err
ror agt. Randall & Smith, Defendants in
Error"
The Court denied the motion on the
ground that the irregularity in entering up
the judgment below, upon which the motion
was based, did not appear upon the record
before the court and they could not allow
evidence dehors the record, for the purpose
oil showing that irregularity in order to fur
nlsh foundation for the motion to dismiss
and as the judgment below was such judg-
ment as the defendant was entitled to, and
regular on the record, the Court had no au-
thority to dismiss the suit
Counsel for defendant in error then moved
that the case be continued and papers be re-
mitted to the court below, that relief might
be had there against the inequality complain
ed OF. The Court held the latter motion un-
der Amusement for further consideration.
No. 2, "Ames & Hoff, plaintiffs in error
against Sales, McCune Co. defendants in
error" was called in ifs order, and argued
before the court by j. B. Brisbine, ESQ.,, for
plaintiff in error, and M. E. Ames, ESQ.,, for
defendents in error. The main point in the
case was the suf6ciency of the execution
and return, of . commission to take testimo-
ny out of the Territory. Case submitted
upon agreement.
Charles f. Vanderburgh Joseph Odds
were admitted members of the bar, and
seem in according to law.
Court adjourned to 10th inst, loan.