, 1863-12-03
LAW NrELLxlENcR.

In " AANA
In tho Circuit Court Of the United States yes.er-
day, considerable time was consumed by the case
Of JameB T. Freelapd ct ala. '. Roger ]. Brass ct
ais. This case is from PEORIA and the only points
OF interest IN the sudden fa in the mercantile
character Of the principal defendant, ian event now
gone two years o1d,) and the amount involved, be-
ing about forty thousand dollars.
Roger j. Brass, the principal defendant, had been
for ten years before the bill was fled, d leading
merchant In Pcorih. His sales during some OF
thoFe ycars had amounted to between forty and
fifty thousand dollars, and his standing with East
ern merchants is shown, by the fact that in the
Spring Of 1851, he purchased thirty-four Thousand
dollars worth of goods, on credit, In New York
City.
This, with other transactions made his indcbt-
ednese amount to between sixty md seventy thou
sand dollars, great deal Of which Was falling due
stoeR * Of eoods on n Ssna to his sS @ % yo
scph F. Devin. for a. nominal consideration of
twenty thousand dollars. OF this sum one
bis notes for tie balance, tic LAST fa1ing due in
ccsy side Of the Court, and the object Of the bill is
to set aside this conveyance as fraudulent COM
plainants alleging that the consideration was mad
eauote; that, 1t The time 1t Waa made, Devin was
s b ess e be e. s ssa sna
that the sale was made IN fEand Of creditors. The
bill aleo asks that an assignment Of the notes gir
F.
aside likewise. This case has been before the
United States Court nearly a year and hall, but
the taking Of volumlnous testimony has prevented
z. F. smi16, E. i. stons, and for eomp.aln-
ants. W. T. Burgess for defendant.
1s Us1TEn STATE. cmcu1r couHr; Hon. Lnot.
Tolcott ct al. Confession Of Judgment, $af4ao.
tChancery9 Trask vs. Denao. On motion Of
complainant's solicitor, on affidavit lod, defends
ant s ruled to GIe his answer to conplanants bill
within ten DAYS.
4s (chanceiy). Rushmore ct al va. Drass ct al
Of G GeS coE5 ono of ho eonp.insnts o u Ill s
cd BY complaiunnts' solicitor. Deposition Of ].
NJ. Robbins suppressed at the fnstance Of defend
ants' attorney. Cause heard until the hour OF ad-
s cooK Gocszr CIRCUIT coun7. Hon. E: S.
Htul0tns. judge
SO (Lar). Reed r.. Lord i Smith. Motion by
plaintiff to suppress deposition orcE7uled- Mo-
lion by defendant to file additional pleas overTued,
Isl. Tfantman ct a rs. Hild:: Jury being una.
tle to agree, discharged By tho Court from the
further consideration OF the case:
904. Conkrisht vs. Carter. Dismissed at de-
fcndAnt's cnAtx by agreement.
20. Lehmsn Is. Erler. Continuance set aside,
and case dismissed at plaintiffs cost, "a per st'p-
as. Mather vs. 1an Ct al Continuance set
aside !, md suit dismissed at plalntis' eost, for
open conrt, Sioso6 ' l' e4's'oS4 -
64s. O'Cnnahan vs. Hannah. On tial before
Jury.
There was no call Of the Law docket to-dAy.
AQEEsT1oE.
In The case Of Fzautman ct III VI. Wild, which
was m action for sIander, tried before Judge VII
Iiams of the Circuit Cont day before yesterday,
the plaintiff declared on words spoken In the Cor
man language, and gave the English Interpretation
Of them, but did not add that hcpersoas In whose
hearing thc words were alleged to be uttered, un
derous words. It Il perhaps serious question
whether these last allegations. OF something eqni-
IL oG no s.ss 10 s eS
the slandcrons words arc spoken In a language
Other th1n the yetnacnlar It must be proved that
tho by-standers understood them. But In Wis
conesn casc It has been decided that the allegation
must bo made in the declaration. as wall 81 sus-
falned BY the proofI In this case Messra Asah and
VIC understand It was theIr purpose to move In Ar.
rest Of judgment In cnse Of verdict for the plant
ID. The jury, however, were discharged yesterday
morning, hsyInn failed TO arfee