The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-04-14
LAW INTElLIGENC E

SUPERIOR CouRT-Before Hon. H. Collins Lee,
Judge The following business was transacted yes
terday!
William and James McGowen as The Baltimore
Fire Insurance Company. An action to recover on
an insurance policy On trial. r. j. Brent and
Israel for plaintiffs; Schley and R. Johnson ST., for
defendant.
Court OF COMMON PLEAs.-Before Hon. William
l.. Marshall Judge. The following business was
transacted yesterday:
Patrick Glenn u.s. William Hopkins. An action
to damages for injuries to the plaintiff by
pulling down house. Verdict for the defendant.
CIRcU1T Court FOR BALTIMORE CITY.-Before Hon.
VIM. Geo. krebs Judge. The following business
was transacted yesterday:
Edward Irelaz Harlow W. Heath and Perley
R. Loveioy. Proceeding to set aside bill of sale.
Argued by Barroll for complainant and Stockbridge
for defendants. Held under advisement
George j. Bookhultz Andrew knell Injunc-
ton granted to restrain the defendant from en-
croaching and building certain lot of ground
on Columbia street. Bouldin for complainant.
CIRCUIT CoURT FOR THE UNITED STATEs.-Before
Hon. William Fell Giles, Judge. The following
business was transacted yesterday:
John J.. Hargraves Richard France. An
ton to recover prize money for lottery tickets
Judgment OF pros.
Richard C. Half rs Philip F. Thomas. An ac-
ton to recover a sum of money, paid under pro-
test, as duty for the importation of painted glass
window, designed to be placed in a church located
at Huntingdon, Baltimore county The picture
ed to the plaintiff, who is the rector.
In this case it was commended by the counsel for
the plaintiff that the picture in controversy
memorial, in the artistic sense, painting within
the meaning of the act of Congress of 1916, and
that it was imported a work of taste and not
matter of merchandise.
The counsel for the defendant suggested that the
article was intended for public edifce, and was
one of utility as well as ornament; that it was not
exclusively article of taste, but article of es
sentia service to the building, and that such it
dutiable under the provisions of the act of
Congress.
The court ruled that the painting was not subject
to duty under the act of 1896 it having been i'm
ported article of taste, and remarked that the
word caste, as used in the act, was the opposite
especially applicable to paintings imported for pub
lie buildings.
Under the ruling of the court the jury returned
verdict for the plaintiff for $3.50 with interest
Nelson and Bruno for plaintiff; Addison for defen-
dant
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
MONDAY, April 12.-Edward J. Pringle, ESQ.,, of
California and Brinton Coke, Esq, of Pennsy lvana,
were admitted attorneys and counsellors of this
court.
Mr.. Chief Justice fancy announced to the bar
that as token of respect to the memory of the late
Col. Thomas Hart Benton, and to enable the judges
OF this court to attend the funeral obsequies of the
deceased, the court will adjourn at o'clock to-day.
No. 56.-George W. Watterston, plaintiff in er-
ror, Us. Andrew NJ. Payne. Mr.. Chief Justice
fancy delivered the opinion of the court, over
ruling the motion of Mr.. Bradley for leave argue
this case
No. 11.-Robert Tayler's administrators, plain
THIS IN error, u.s. Nathan T. Carryl, who survived
William }. Ward The reargumept of this cause
was commenced by Mr.. Hood for the plaintiffs in
error.
Adjourned until tomorrow at IL o'clock