New-York tribune., 1866-12-01
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT-Noy. 27.-Before
Judge SaIALLgT.
THE LOTTERY AND P0II0Y BUSINESS AGAIN.
United State. agt wm Croft two inlictments.l

United States agt Wm. Croft two indclmentsl
United States District Attorney Samuel G.. Court,
ney Informed tho Court that consideration il appeared
aoaOtf whether tAe question Of he consiqoaa Of taKae
Supreme Court appeal from the proceedings before Judge
Holson on Tuesday last those proceedings consisting Of
OF thO demurrer It had been aPpoed at The the Of those
procee1gs 1a oeauile o. a9t haiS couu % Snee up
90 appeal without division although the proceedings were
before oayone judge but appears now that that es mis-
take that Le proceedings ~ demurrer Of that nature
20 bc appealed must be bad oe the Judges 9nd aceiihcate
OF division given Judge Smey Informed thgDisret Attorney
ihss morning il Treiaf0a to tie matter ana Bat they
werO bold OF the opinion that there would have
domurror Ike his vas IN order TO have it carried
Hp - s ssPefor Conr That be would allow tic case 20 be
Heisons Judgment IN avo Of dcmurreri but he wished
distinctly understood that this dissent was only r9 (ora and
simply oT The purpose of having the decided in the Su
tSS Inv, ss = as % s tssi of nSr nelson and he also con-
CURED win Judge Nelson s opinion that the law would not
b. sustlnei before be supreme Court The District Attorney
then ard hat te amsndrr OF tie law BY inserting sPee
Jutge smay replied :s q his opinion the amcndMent was
wasea directed 70 prepare ie record certifying the division
OF opinion II should be understood that no criminal case can
be carried Up the Supreme Cont except BY certificate OF
division Unless that Be oarcd the decision Of The Circuit
ALLEsED WEOyGFUL IMPOSITION or DUTr-A "sHELAc'
a. CASE
James Tinker agt Hiram Darney
This an acon tIed before Julrc Smaey and Jury
tho 7th iBs II brought to recover $1,000 aad interest for
damage plaintiff alleged be susiaiad By Wrongful Imposition
colSio.sa-e dry bcag imposed f9r the ALLEGED reason
siiaf purposes gun copa 70, Judge charged the Jury
thlt ttAnior thc Gorern1el thor must find that The me
ehasda n question generally and % somo considerable
extent used fof the purposes De gam cUpaL The gy
iosnd f5r tis plaintiff for TIE ful amount claimed.
The matter now COMES before tie Court upon motion FOR
new trial upon the exception aksa By tho District, 4ii9Tney
aad The questions Of aH Iael IN Tie case and decided pro
First Exception Of TIE counsel defendant TO the charge
Of The judge 70 th Jury ha rnder ths A Of Coagrss os
in question generally and % some eonsdefobe extent
used for the same purpose as gnm copal.
r D N
March 3 is57 ana therclore su cannot be mainielnol
Third That the protest this sut proved and admitted 70
olce,or whereas by Static q 25 Ieb sa SECTION tho
oles fsl1ircd De made al before the paymcpt Of
duties and therefore suii cannot be maintained
smporssd jan - iss2 BE- admted "duty nee sPe
been proved the ta ia appeal made Ap ~ is6,
20 the secretary Of ae Treasury aHd reply received aeSnom
s8gng is receipt end That protest had been filed by plaintiffs
axainsf tho imposition Of this duty.
Aftefgumeut between counsel fof pants and Assistant
u District Attorney Ethan Alsn the Court took the pcrs,
fcsoying s decision
suPpTAfE ECOuRT-CaAMrEns-N 9s.-Before Mr. JUS.
tice SUTHERLAND.
A sfLvHR zrMv0 coMPANY AND now IT WAS
FORMED--A NICE QUESTION OF LAW.
William johnson against the Consolidated silver Mining,
II Reese River ard Union pisiiict Company and another.
\ TIE plaintiff in this case ayers in his complaint
n ds S ~ ii es5s s @ qsas5 % sSS Yen S Roma. s p
Gould conveying them for the nominal consideration OF g. but
Sd 10 RsvYork and dispose Of The sane with other mines
40 GoUids hands in whch,hc had pterest sud ta DO
Sstsrer tey might be sod so Issi pursuant to that uader
sanding aud Osrcement Gould came 70 and entered
An us formation Of the Consolidated Silver Mining Com
pany, one q the deieadss's m y ha SUIT u hoIemoh ~ ~
mining property intustcd TO him BY the plaintiff 70 be oldo
h SsS5y Ssss gTs .oef Sl Of Os s cd%psSy a bs
isrrsf portion Of ibis stoc ct apd 70 Gould By way OF
s % ns PSsg y e S cOSpsny S r TRah IN @
3hey paid notbng be further oASes saS & We nave
6seretarv Is receiving $4,000 salary and that $4,000 has
osn 6Ecd hs President salary and the Other ofge sala
CompanT ao seeking dispose Of their stock 70 bona ft
ss0hss without S niSss S5ds which hs oa Red a.
trusts for hs benefit That the plaintiff has been IN this city
ase G pag ssng y Ns5 P0 ~ e % @ seiSc. P On y 9 ts
Pee Of sae Coupany That he shood ee psq ,eat shortly
hssi akiag provision for the payment 70 tho plaintiff
Shls csm and that the Company nov refuse 70 recognize any
sS so'S y I hs boos ard % paOs relating to e transfers
hon Oud bat had been dFsd BY the Company through tie
ne paini In the suit 70 have equitable tile de-
N him sg,ss seS SP q rs sG eSasa,sS Ss s y SG no
Aasds Of he ooe Of the Company for which nothing has
oS in any ise Gould u q any oT psso5
sts ntefelts o g paaha have been set.lsdand tas the
bh papor enable him % dstermine hs rights either
Ngainst ha Company or Gould ~ sEk
Es dsndans on ne ground that aaae Of action shown
f1S purohhsers t an examination Of title which dd not
koa hs ts Of to plaintiff and that his whole remedy any
Kaa aeainst Ooa.d for breach q trust tltFAN .
Mr. Dodge orl the plaintiff claimed that the action Wa1 IN
pc naigFg g b q dsoSy and that b. bad night 70 the
EeTo py TO bs aea b an examination q Their books 80,
fai Whether Injunction and receiver could be epped for on
k9Oogn Of any stock remaining 10 lhe haRq v QYg Ra4
ss cSyrl q F'ssEse I. ,.,S ssSlsi1Sp I,
AZ THa LihcoLi pIvoRcE guIf--AE nfTEic4Tg SuTT. =
y LlnoQln agt Lincoln, tan3F s.-r y
sSssq u, eds 3 s counsel =. q s.a I g, sG.S