The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-12-27
THE COURT S.
SUPREME CouRT-cHxnbeRs.


Important Opinion Regarding tho Discharge
Of Enlisted Men from the United States Army
ON Habeas Corpus.
Before Judge Ingraham.
IN 70 John O'C0nnor - do NOT In the opinion
that officer Of the United States army may treat with
contempt the OF habeas corpus insured under the
authority Of the State and disobey the writ merely on
return by him that no is acting under the laws Of the
United States II that Is a sufficient answer TO the writ
he should appear in obedience to the writ and show
that his return ia true Nor DO think that an enlist
ment Of minor under the age OF eighteen valid by
any law Of the United States when such law expressly
forbids the enlistment Of persons under the o. egh
teen Nor 10 ta sufficient excuse for this violation Of
the law to that the makes the oath OF the recruit
conclusive evidence to his age. II is so between tho
recruit and the United States but certainly cannot be
OF his child, when the sta.nte also secures
to the parent the control q his child II under
sn o sw Would Any Gs 10
perpetrats great frauds the rights Of parents and
their children hv merely inserting In the enlistment
BY the act Of Congress Of 1851 minors the age Of
eighteen may be enlisted II is provided BY the
act Of 1862 and Congress undoubtedly possesses the
power TO authorize the enlistment Of persons under that
age This they have not done but the contrary have
the enlistment OF the recruit in the present case valid
but of the opinion that 1t was ate in direct violation
of law and that the recruit should be discharged Aques
ton however has been raised as to the power OF Judge
OF the state court to grant the relief sought for There
have been several in which 10 has been held that
such should not be exercised and within the past
year two three have been before tho judges Of
this court IN this district in which similar ruling has
been accepted do not PROPOSE therefore to examine
this lestion further than to follow such decisions
until review shall be had Of aome of these by the
courts leaving TO the petitioner to review this decision
by certora TO the General Term, TO seek that relief
which to he is entitled to- by application
to Of the judges Of the Emitted States courts can
not believe that direct violation OF the act of Con-
gress would be sus aimed on such an application.
The writ before me Is dismissed
Interesting Disclosures Regarding "COrnero
Stock TRANSFORMATIONS 10 Dissolve nm
Injunction.
Clement H. Kdncoc1s Ct al Daniel DyeO This was
a mat!or 70 dissolve injunction obtained by the plain
t restraining tho defendan. from negotiating two notes
for $500 which tbe plaintiffs gave the defendant in
the month Of January, 1885, The motion was made by
A. Smith, of counsel, upon tho complaint ITSELF the
defendant asserting that the facts stated 70 t9e 99U
plan..are not true, and that even II they true iey
do not furnish cause Of action against him not
ente paiatis To an injunction The complaint alleges
that the defendant Represented TO the plaintiffs that
2rued large AMOUNT Of stock In the Erie Railroad and
theTeupon tie parties agreed that the paip;ds should
buy 1850 shares more, which together with thai held
by the defendant would DO all, or nearly
all Of that stock then the market that they could
then be able TO make contracts with other people in
the street, who did not know Of their inability 10 pro-
cure stock and out Of which transaction they would be
able 70 rcaifzs large emopnt Of money In other
words they that was agreed That the plaintiffs and
the defendant should get corner" in Erie Railroad
stock which should produce Tor them large Of
money The plaintiffs in addition assert that when the
'csrfer was bceyc1 " DO perfect, they, the plain.
ellis, at the request OF the defendant bought 900
shares OF stock and surprised to find thatthe par
ties from whom they purchased delivered the stock to
them. rhoy charge that this the identical stock
held BY the defendant When the plaintiffs enabled
10 take up the stock they had bought, viz, 10000
shares they had negotiations with the defendant
in tho course of which he agreed TO lend. and
did lend them, $4,000, for which they g9ye MN
they now seek 10 prevent. The motion 20
Dissolve the injunction Is based upon the point that the
stated by the plaintiffs OF agreement TO make
corner" in stock is not such entities either
party to into court ask either chat the contract
DO enforced that thoy bc relieved from its effect and
that such contract Is agnins, public policy and void
Decision reserved I. r. March, counsel opposing the
motion