New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-03-16

man " Wool argued at the same General Term Is 'e
The order appealed from should be reversed and the motion
below should be granted without 60 ,h .,,t,,on
S,rrHtnt,>p Tile question IL not ss 70 me e'n-'''u
~. o, c fourth section 81 the act, del S lat to
or authority of the President during The h.eeo1
mon. o. c done omitted e. be doue under OF Wy IoVi "a
the Preu G 81 81 a%Y OF t n @ section Of the
act authorizing the defendant IN any '1eh ee'lo 70
~ a. tr Divrir where suit l. brought for mat on
complying It'll certain requirements specified n the se,n
's 10. -, ~ IT, n| GOOD and efficient surety, &c.
The question p,csenied BY 'h sfpe - not - 70 ~, ."
mont Sc or az to the constitutional power OF tonfe.S
To enthorize the President 20 ordcr the arrest lmpr5oh
as 20 tho conutioue power 81 Congs. 20 give 10. 'rco
Counts o. the Omitted States ltnniy oi li.ne ~ %
state Corft'l crcn.ivc lI dc''n o' ''' u' OF All
su,h arrs.,s i,.p i-ou,4.ut Sc 81. =. ar.
I'm Strpine he question 20 the cou,,iuionay oil ne
Of tb a,ion viii y Ire determination Of the question as
to the ccusiutionaty 81 he an tcct'"" At ~
the t cou-f,r that the trial OF the actions TO Do
,,,oyeJ !, the C nit Courts OF the luied states under
would involve the determination OF me qu l"h Is 20 So
ationaity Of the fth .e'ou Wheeler ued ~ nc se
5th section 20 take rom nc st.o outs ao I've ~ A.
irrut Corfts of the United 'tee' tnc 't' N" ''''
Hd ccrgre.. the constitutional power DO thsi That Is
II Corr hsd The power then the order appesicd from de-
nyius the de;tinis motion 10 remove 'h" .loh quo ~
g An, rein g. the ir,uit Court of the United st,te. 10,
M Soien III ii,i ~ S.w-Noik .horld b. Irycfsed and
,ns on ORDER made directing such removed u ,cnSi.ss nsu
-
n no .p. hsl been taken for the removal Of the seton
nom ls Cour and the at.oa should BE- tried IN tins Court
I ,, zion a. 10 the cou.,iiutuDaly Of the fourth sec
ton Of the set should be decided adveeyt To ue uleuuS
h, t Couf OF Appeals OF this state, the supreme Court OF
H. United states would have nusl add conclusive appellate
inrisIon OF tie question. Con g. = Art o. go OF Ihe
isf 5ss,dS 20. As' n si', S5S tWbea,ep, al)
Csnot Contc, sye the Circuit Court Of the United sia'e
original iud,dci,on IL eny case to when th Spiso JUL"
In GSon v United stsle. Bsul whesion, cited by
Judge Leonard Gu. j. Marshall -sid he could perceive "
srolnd Tor ,ayiul that Cousfe-- could not. ,,
I'm bs cs. one Of the whether Congress could
consiituously confer on The Bank the nEt TO suo ehup
,urd In every Circuit CouTt Of the United state, ~,
Utwes held ha such su' case arriving under lsW %
the United States consequently tei II was "l,nn tnS
mower OF hc it,d Stss and Congress could confer upon
ihe Circuit Count jurisdiction oveTn; -, ., ,ho
see also, Curiss'' Com. on the l.Tsd non No. !" VIZ
cr, thc uod States cctions " and ~ tho latter %
ton containing quotation from sno,her portion "; ~ o.
the ouuou Of Chief Justice Mar-ha la OsboiuN w" Dana
of the United States, apparently quite peiuhshs TO 'he gue
I' ~ ,, ,s f., the conclusion Of Judge Leonard ,hA,
Congress had tic power 20 cTect tho TRANSFER 70 he 's
! Court orthe United state. ,.t-o,
obsolete necessary but to make wod be "
Will usage In Ike and beside such az order would 9.
| LONGER had iursdiction Of ,his action;
II appearing that the defendant has complied with the re
efesu's Of the for such transfer, the order app.
ron should b. rryrred urd ord,r made by hs touI, ~
a.. removal Of the acion aud al pr0e'e"ns' 'ni' " "
| THE SEw-HkvES Raj ROAD CASTS
| SYSN. n. X. r. Go. Y. Robert Schuyler, e, al ,
| BY THE COURr-Ne are all ol opinion 'hnt lu'
motion Tor All order amending tie judgment q the Genera
Tenn IN hi. c1,e .hou be denied We a1c Inclined 70 thu
that III. exceptions 20 the sns pIocrellns' ~ 20
larry be heard by G,ucr Term vihor sny other Q, in
e appeal. om the judsuent OF The sP,ciM leIn sna I
ca appeal 10 The Cont 81 Agi.ss non ln, on ~. 80,
nation or Judgment OF the General Term of INC eeuoh
such exceptions, The Court Of Appt ooIa mo So.
clsl Term and he judgment order Of ,he Gen
s,s Term on ;oeh saefPS ,, eg bv which the q.
proceeding W., directed but TO ayoa spy
Of regularity in he tour Of Appeals We ,ussr ,a ,
Term from the JUDGMENT Of the Special Term by adding TO Of
b%t S"sd ri. ,Ssge.,on be acted on should o. eou,
conne tn hearing the Gcner Term the second sPPe'
to the exceptions In tie ss-ss.m.n, ~ 0ee'a'hs
The following decision. also rendered; ,os, NJ.
Ja.tiee. srrHsSL.Np LsosIRD aud BARSlRD.
George Colyer y. George Collins 9, a-Judsrnen. :.
sbideite event opulen By Leonard and Sutherland ~
sss ss{'s S. A lc = aasG:ss {, 1870 1917
melton g .Sd g s.s a.. sss , SO sss az.
chs,',. a. iro'i v Andrew Quad ersa,h = al. or4Oi
s Gsss T ; sa Ss,i William oEs oa
kersed and udsHen, vsesied nd e1ceRon. Of ,grea1,
enid eae. 70 The action aad entitled TO come without
either party Opinions by suthsTlsnd md Leonard
Edward Gould v {. {. Church and y :. Phinuey.-yrds
verde aud exception Of psnh With costa Opinion
, Lowell h. Kellogg " Osie. AmesJudgmen, reysr.sdi
s ordered costs to sbidc event Opinion BY suiher
land, ]. Leonard. J., dissenting.
William ~. Clinton '. John ;. Brown Q, a.-Jadsmeni
Affirmed, VIII COST. Opinion BY suiL'fand, J.
Chsile. Dinond receiver william H. hsz,E5 Jr.-Jads
s ssmd order dyas o Ps1' ard to rn
tuIe Sc. affirmed, with tlocosls q sppcal.
I armed. With costs. Opinion by Leonard, J.
J.ry. y. Lei. '. The Ar,.ns Bank-,Judsueut for d,
C..s. fx.ap A. FrStuirI TFss. 1885,
b'S, c 5 Ps., LfGs.T % SLasf Ra
affirmed with 80 cos Opinion by Cerke' J snihc''nd
Jaqe. B. Lsnrv Deo. Z. Titus e, s.-Appss dismissed
y G-orso I. Ting " Edssrd HI-Ord'r rsvsrsd and ih,
Tn raoton to abide The event Opinion By LeoosId Il;
J,hn 4. Cook v. John A. B,dwell-Ordcr affirmed with
\ &c cost. Opinion By Sutherland, j.
II re ssseshent fo regulating and grading Eishe,h .,e
witt Of osrtioIsfi qua'hrd. Opinion by Clarke IN
| ECwaId q. ThompsOn, admIinisiTa'ori v Edward y.
Cosles-Qrier Of Surrogate affirmed with costs. Opinion
by ,so CORA ~. nth, II c,,,.rs -r,l,,,.u,
rsed and trial ordered costs 70 sbdo tie eve1'
People a rel. Peter j. John v. Geo EborJnds-
me- reversed aud new trial ordered costs to abide the
| 2 e People en- rel Charle. Keye. y. Charlie. Hobbs
Ca JoJse1 Proceeding Of tbs Jus,ice reversed with
Rchsrd T. Mount it,, " John Mitchell ct al--ordcr II tho
Surrogate resersed, with costs Of the appel Opinion BY
samuel ). Hunt v Catherine A. Connor-Judgrnent at
WIN Milo v John han.c, c,rJudsmen,s ssirrned with
costs-Opirion BY ClcrEe, J..
clarence y BAKER " John BakeT.-OfdeI affirmed, WIN
| costs.
The People ex rel Nathaniel L. oriswod y. William A.
| erand }.
Nathaniel ]. Gfisgold v. LSngdon H. Haven 81, bOfde.
affirmed, with 2 10 cost.
Jose N. Bolss v John NJ Tumble ct al; George CspIn
v. Jacob BurchsId ct sl.-Appess dsmlsied with cos
Opinions by CIorks J.
John W. spor William Rogers ct a. Charles s Young
=. al cathsrine Corr john II. White Abraham Johnson
Judgments affirmed with costs.
ThidAyenue Il r. Co " The Mayor, &C. Order efirord
seDtinr
Patrick Ghn.y. v John ~ Acknowledgment sfBrmss
with costs Opinion by Leonard. J.
Reuben Ross, jr Peter Morris ct slJudgment affirmed