The national Republican., 1866-12-11
The Csurts.

SUPRExR CoURT OF THE UNITED STATES
% 80 MorpAr, Dsesnber 70. 1893:
The PrGewpttos Lsscs-- Cestsa Of Me-Jn-
risdiofion under tie 3Sh Section Of ths Judiciary
Z. Hnmisy. This 10 . wit Of error to the Supreme
Court Of the State Of Louisisna The plaintiff hsv.
ing brought bis action In 1882 In District Court
Of that State the petition sitting forth that hs was
the owner Of different tracts Of land under various
titles, and that the defendant had settled and was
committing waste on the land. The prayer was
that the plaintiff might bs declared the true owner
Of the land, and be quietsd In bis possession.
The defendant denied that the land possessed BY
him was the property Of the plsintie, and avsrrsd
which he had acquired presumption right By 20.
This suit was decided in favor Of the defendant
By the District Court, and also on appeal, BY the
Suprsms Court Of the State. The plaintiff then
sued out writ Of error TO this court, alleging that
there were such srron In the decision Of the 81.
prsms Court Of the State % could Be corrected BY
ihii court under the 25th section Of the judiciary
act. H..
The following are the facts under which II 10
oontsndsd the court has Jurisdiction: There were
three cophrmations- two hrst to the children
Of Paul Loups, and the last vas to one Dospit 81.
Almond; hs had purchased from the former parties,
and not being aware Of the confirmation By the old
board he presented II to the board constituted BY
been surveyed under lie Spanish Government, and
thsrsfors by the 9th section Of the act Of 1907, II
was required to bs surveyed undsf the directions
Of the Surveyor General. This however, was not
done until 1884 The New Orleans and 0pslouss.
large numbers rushed IN and settled upon the
tract. An organisation Of these settlers, - al.
lsgsd, without notice 70 the plaintiff, appealed to
the General Land once 70 have the survey set
ssids. snd thsy % far sueessdsd q TO procure the
Aisspprovai Of the survey q to that part Of II
which included Hunisy's settlement. The suprsms
Court Of Louisiana construed this sct % a. 70
allow the defendant, Hunley, 10 defeat the plain
tif's action BY bis showing that he had taken the
military steps 70 obtain p,ss.nption' ssyine that
express reservation In favor o the settlers suthor
ising them to test the validity Of the survey and
| the extent Of the grant to Paul Loups and 81.
Almond, and there is an admission on the record
that Henley had all the qualifications repaired By
The United states to acquire under the presumption
laws, and that the portion Of land which hs ocea.
pies ID on the north side Of Bayou Crocodile, p"
where the court held In another portion Of ts opin
Ion that the survey ought not to have been ex.
| tended.
because. frst, the land had been confirmed By the
commissioners under the sot Of 1907 ~ appsars By
their report Of the 9th January, 1912, and ordered
to bs surveyed BY the Attorney General Of Louisi-
ana which being done BY Hawke In 1854, and :p-
proved by the Surveyor General, and ratified By
Congress, though disapprovsd BY the Commissioner
Of the Land ONCE. related back to the date Of conhr
nation more than forty years before the settlement
| BY Hunlsy; and, second, because Lanfssr's title
was complete, while Hunlsy's was inehosts II
this act authorizes Q settler Of 1884 to assert his
title against concession Of 1885, confirmed BY the
aot Of 1907, surveyed under the supervision. and
spprovsd BY the Surveyor General, and ratified BY
Congress, Il certainly does not change the law as
settled BY this court, that only such settlers a.
have perfected their titles can contest the perfect
title presented By the plaintiff in error.
The defendant In error contends that tas pro.
vidsd BY the act rstifying Lsnfsars title, -
against the United ststss II any settler was sstab
li.hsd upon . portion Of the land 50 surveyed,
b. improperly included In such survey. and not to
have been protected BY the confirmation, the rights
oths settler were reserved and not affected BY this
sct The set referred II 10 the courts TO decide
what land really passed under the confirmation Of
the two elsims, and whether the survey was In
prsssly admitted that the defendant was such .
settler @ was contemplated In the aot In obedience
70 this act the eours Of Louisians took oosnisance
Of the matters delegated to them, and In accord.
that the confirmation Of the claims extended TO no
part Of the land north Of the Bayou Crocodile rep.
resented In the survey, that Hunlsy was settled
sorth Of that HaJcu. and ~ thsrsfors one q ths
not apply, and that therefore judgment must Be
given against Lsnfsar and In favor Of Hunley
These being the only matters decided BY the su
prsme Court Of the State. It Is idle to attempt tc
) show that they fall within the provisions Of the
25,h section Of the judiciary act. It Is thsrsfore
submitted that this writ Of error must be dismissed
without any examination Of the merits Of the case
Mr. Blair and +. A. Dick for plaintiff In error,
and Louis Jsnin for defendant In error.
The Garland Test. Oath Case-United State
Supreme Court, Er Parie A. II. Garidnd.-Thi.
case 10 familiar to Newspaper readers. There wa.
some expectation that there would be decision In
II this MONDAY, l0th,) morning. but none was ron
dsred. Lorenio Sherwood, Esq, Of Texas, ad
dressed to the court motion for reargument Of The
case, stating in substance, that u was matter In
which the loyal people Of the South took deep in
tsrest, and that himself and Gen. A. J. Hamilton
Of Tsxas were Of the opinion that the case on be-
half Of the Government In support Of the con
stitutionality Of the oath had not been fully pre-
ssntsd. 1t VA, therefore, desired that the court
would hear further argument before rendering thei
opinion In the case.
Tho Chief Justice suggested to counsel that h,
put his motion In writing and file II, rcmsrkinl
that It would then bs considered.
II is suthoritstivsy stated that there has beer
no such conclusion arrived at on the part Of th'
court % has been, with day or two, Published II
some Of the public press.
UNITED STATES CoURr OF CLAINs-Monddy
December lo.-Thsophilus B. sieklss against Th'
United States. Judge Peck delivered the opinion
Of ths court In this case, finding $s, 1850 due t.
tbs claimant.
J. @. johnson against The United States. Thi
cause was argued and submitted on demurrer b,
Mr.. Kerr, the Deputy Solicitor for the Unitst
States, the claimant not appearing either person
ally or BY counsel.
Harvey @. Cslkin against The United States
The demurrer fled In this cause was overrulcd, ant
the Solicitors for the United States were directed
answer over.
Hiram W. Levi against the United States. Th,
petition filed In this case was dismissed.
Adjourned until this morning ct II o'clock.
CRIMINAL CoURr-Judge Fisher.-( Edw't
G. Darlington, ESQ, District Attorney prosecuting.
Beverly Carter, indicted for stealing clothing ant
boots from Michael MoDsvitt. Noile proseqni b.
} U. 8. Attorney.
Frank Jsekson, indicted for stealing money from
Thomas Sullivan. Verdict not guilty. Webb FOL
defence.
George Currisr, indicted for stealing money frou
| Charles PRO Verdict guilty, Smithers for dc