, 1863-12-08
LAW INTELLIGENCE,

KEHSHAW, rs. WESTERN
| TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY.
Recorders Court-Charge to the Grand
Jury.
| RECORD OF BUSINESS DONE IN TIE
COURTS, ETC, ETC.
srrzn1on CouR4.-In the Superior Court Of
Chicago before Judge Gray, in Chambers, tho case
OF oTamc1 8. uough ct al, Va. The Western TRIMS
poFtation Company, WAS the subject OF brief ar
cument On plea fled By defendant, denying tho
Jurisdiction. The suit Was brought to recover
damages for the destruction of packing houses
on the wharf Of the p1ainti6son the South Branch,
wldch were consumed BY fire communicated to
them By tho propeller Falcon burnt while lying at
the wharf on the:mght Of the 18th Of October,
1855. The declaration drawn by Arlington d Dent,
counsel for plaintiff, alleges that the Falcon was
fastened to the Pla1ntids' wharf, against their
consent aud contrary to their prohibition and that
1t was owing to the negligence, carelessness, and
niEmnnsgcment Of the servants OF Defendant in
charge Of the Falcon, that the fire was communl-
Gated to the packing houses. The summons had
been served On Jonathan d. Tuttlc, agent OF the
Western Transportation Company, in Chicago,
and HI, Bates, counsel for Defendant, commended
that the Western Transportation Company, . cor
poration created and existing under tho laws of
the State Of New York, os ayerrtd in the dec1a1z-
ion docs not and cannot 1eside OF be found in the
County Of Cook and State Of Illinois, where tho
act il alleged to hare been committed and the
cauGc of action TO hare accrued, and that this is
not one Of the provided for by the Statute Of
Illinois, In which 1t il lawful to tho defendant
ont Of the county where he resides or may be
found.
Counsel compared the language Of Section 2,
Chapter IS, Of the Revised Statutes Of 1875, In re-
lation to the subject Of sueing the Defendants ont
Of the county Of their residence with that Of the
amended Statute Of 1861, on the same subject, in
order to show that under the amended Statute, no
notion for tort be brought in this State, e.
cept In the county where tho defendant resides OF
may be found, the words ''cause Of action'' ueed
in the original Statute Of 1916, being omitted in
Act OF 1861.
Counsel argued that is corporation exists only
In contemplation Of law, and BY force OF the law.
it can have no loyal existence ont Of the bounsr-
les Of the sovereignty which created it. and hence
cannot In any sense Of the word be said to reside
OF be found In 4 place not within the boundaries
Of that sovereignty, that 1t must dwell In the place
Of Its creation. and is not capable Of migration to
another sovereignty, and hence only in the place
OF Its creation could it be liable to suit.
Counsel admitted that II the defendants had ac-
tually made = contract in this county, with the
plaintiffs that suit on sach contract might BE-
brought here, and TINT service Of tho summons
on an agent would bo binding upon tho corpora
tlcn but he urged that this wns not case OF coz
tract but Of tort and therefore was covered by the
prohibition Of the Act OF 1861.
The Defendant, he atgned, cannot be found In
Cook County, where he cannot exist. "No person
can be found where that person does not exist.
That fe cleat."
Counsel also commented On the language OF the
Statute Of 1853 which provides that where suit IL
brought against any Incorporated company, the
p1eeldent Of which does not reside In the county
where suit is brought, or absent from the county,
the SUMMONS ehall be served By leaving copy
with any clerk, &C., or any agent Of such company
found in the county, hut claimed that It was an
parent from the language Of that Statute and from
the decisions interpreting it. that it was Intended
10 11e1ude only corporations a-s-.s-1
la~u and not those whose legal existence out
sid1 tiu etate- The Court declined to hear any ar
gu1nent for The Plaintiff on the point OF juzisdlc-
| ion, and holds the question under adytsemeut.
REcoRDEH'e CoURr.-ln the Recorders Court
TIE only ersnt Of so9seqnen@ee @ vas the charge to
J
Burcn. in substance us follows:
sr II 1s wisely provided BY The Constitution Of this
odense t mi nnt he sha Be- t indicted b. e1naa % 9uP1
Il the grand jnry, alter careful and thorough
inrestigation Of any case that may come before
itted, or that the accused il probably guilty il is
the duty Of the grand ju1y to present such person
for triaf. whatever may be bis condition q what
other hand, they md that there Is no just ca cause use
for presenting such pefs0u for trial. il will be
their auty TO ignore the bill. is a. Important to
peace. happiness and prosperity Of every ecmma-
nifty depends upon jast and fearless adminIst1a-
ton Of criminal justice.
C
intrcduce long evidence 10 explain or eontsadlct
fcro you, and this makes it the more important
that you should In every case make q thorough in
are haayy miy % ipsev 1sSe
dcntly found, it not only subjects the ACCUSED to
the delaying Of public trlal fora criminal oense
@ b9t subjects him to The expense Of defending him:
It also subjects tue people to Large expense IN
prosecuting the charge. But, gentlemen, II you find
The irdIvidrsl ehaFgsd sith q1ms oncht to be put
Is made against him. fou hare In charge the IN
te.eet OF The community, and the protection Of tho
Youare all gentlemen Of experience md iutel1i-
gencc. and 1t Il not necessary that should ampi-
y upon these general principles.
allow NJ to Te@id you @ q iho importance 'o Ct S o.
II i person charged, With crime should be nt
pending before ron, be might perhaps, endeavor
TO exert rome Improper influence upon some 0f
yo9 Or be may escape he E5sl;ainss of the ocers
The Recorder then gave tho usual Instructions
relative to tho appointment Of clerk, and the
number receFsarv to cnnstitufa a 7Horkino nno,