The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1865-07-12

I'LL
was a majority against him on the home
vote. and in his favor counting the soldiers
vote. The township Of Pontiac held It's
election in the city Of Pontiac, and it gave
a considerable Democratic majority. Knight
would be elected il this vote was rejected.
Knight claimed that this vote was Illegal,
and the court 80 held on the ground that
by the city charter OF Pontiac under which
was claimed right 10 hold township cleo
lions in the city the right was expressly
confined to the spring elections. In decid-
ing the case the court remarked upon the
difference between the city charter oi Pom
tiac and the laws authorizing the townships
OF Marsl all. Lansing aud Ipsilanti to hold
all their elections 10 the cities carved out Of
them. Judgment renderedthat Knight was
duly elected
Aulre,r liz Due e. the Detroit a,m Nj
traulee Ralrood Compaay- In this case
il va held hy the court that where a mort
n,age was given 10 secure such future OPP
tiOnal advances as the mortgage might
make To- the mOrigagOr the mortgage did
not become a valid lien until advances were
made aud that "A subsequent deed or mort
gaee given and recorded before the al
yance- we're made would take precedence
to H. Decree reversed.
Reujen Urtght {. S,ids r. Dnnhan.
This was a -uit brought 10 recover lands ia
Ionia county, under tax deed for 1913.
The Circuit Court held the tax title invalid.
This court reversed the judgment aud or
dered a new trial. Several important ques-
tons relating TO tax titlees were decided ia
this case
E,chnOnd Horiou r. Ei'rav1i Sautsdess,
ri al. Held b, the court that person who
bas acquired am interest in mortgasai
premises subsequent 10 the mortgage was
proper party to suit 10 fOreclose it, not
withstandins be is also the owner of "a tax
title on the premises Decree affirmed.
Joha BucbefJr, C. EO00 Schultz Ia this
case il Was decided that when IA note was
made payable 90 gold. and suit Is brought
upon &c., The court has no right Ia receive
evidence that gold X worth premium in
treasury notes. and to render IA Judgment
I Tor more than the face of the note on such
/ evidence One dollar is legally just a. val
liable rs any other dollar, and the courts
/ have no right To make any distinction.
Judgment reversed.
PrOJke q. Inta D,t51unL Held among
other things thai the court on the trial %
Il criminal ease has no right 10 instruct Oh,
Jui1 ti"t tis -........-t ssiv.. marc ,r..isrhf o.
tho statement OF the prisoner than Ia th,
testimony of unimpeached Witnesses. tn,
jury are not obliged 10 regard any test
mOny which they do not believe, and the,
are 10 give such weight to all the evidence
as they think it entitled to- Judgment re
yersed
R,chord Elliott r. People, Held that 70
an onense punishable by Imprisonment il
the county Jail, the Recorders Court Of De
trOit has no right to sentence the oflende
to Imprisonment in the House Of Correction
Tor more than one year Judgment re
versed.
In the case of Fortune e. White q. N
= D,frOH anil lHrapkee Ralr0al Comp0n5
and Ch0fi.s Norm e. rieud Pdimer, {
a. the DEGREES in the court below were ais
reverred. hut the points decided We're onl
of interest to the legal profession.
, Among the eases argued hut not yet lie
in error was convicted for refusing 10 re
ceive the oath of an elector at an electio
{ in the township ci North Branch, wher
they We're acting ~ inspectors. The ele,
tor offered to take the requisite oath, bu
they refused to administer it To him. CLAIM
ing the right To decide for themsclvt
whether he was qualified or not
People p. Valentine CorlueH Deien,
e ant was indicted for rape. The fact
I We're that he had Illicit Intercourse with
woman, with her consent, while she Wa
E insane. The court below held this to b
4 rape, on the ground that an insane woma
{ has no capacity To give consent
HW'an " ayJorN r. Cay Of Dsi0l
5 The validity of the ordinance Of the city
r Detroit against slaughter houses Is involve
in this case.
DarW s. Learnt r. Nartha i. Leur.t
r The question in this case is, whether maj
after being married to 4 woman for mol
than twenty years and having seven chi
Il dren by her, is entitled To divorce fro
II her on the ground that he has Just disco
r cred that she was unchastc before her ma
II riage. There l. perhaps still furth,
o question, whether any such unchastity ".
70 proved
l. We noticed in attendance upon the cou
d the following attorneys and counsellor
e VIZ; G.. |. Walker. Geo. :. Swift. n. !
Bach \. c. Baldwin. T. W. Meddaugh.
A y. Taylor, \. Pond {. Tryon ". T. Mite
!, ell, !. c. Willis, F. H. Garfield. \. Bell
n Gould and Attorney General Williams.