New-York tribune., 1866-12-22
o Brown ST Este, for pnt A. Night j for defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-DEc. 2l.-Boiors
fr. rt.Euro
TIR CIRCAsSIAS nIBROGLIO-IMPORTAST OPINION OF
JUDGE BEYEDICT-BOTTOMRY BONDS vs. BTATB

D.
TIL Steamship Crcassian agt jonathan L Bischohshem
The steamer CircassIan arrived in this port ~ ject
70 two botom bonds for the aggregate amount Of some
{2 D and 10 liens wages On tie 2Jth d September and
~. q October her bes filed in this court to collect the
bonds andAdmialy process N rem was issued against the
yscL To SUCH prpees tho Marshal returned thit no auhcu
steamer on the I'd Of October bqt previous to bis ataeEng
Toe ,e'se. was IN c9floe 9i tae sner unuo Dn'eH o
AZ time Of the attachment by the Marshal these warrants
hands Of the SAorf issued by Justice Of the Sn
prcne Court Of the Siae under az ac 70 oV9e lo tno o
lection oi demands against ships and veassis' , ,.
th vessel under hc.sse aud thereafter numerous others
since the return the processes further steps have been
nm order Of nude and tho I'D day Of November
the vessel was put up by the Sheriff and knocked
down Appleton StEgn for e91O Of WhcA ~ per ceLA 1s
b'sn paid the balance remainlug unpaid ,
Auters cu, this posture Sturgis present, 70 tho
law and that y virtue thereof sheriff seized this vessel
II a s pl Seien tina tBa the Nsrha Of the Bi
i, ,,c. In t,eIe cause. and now claims 20 have said
,css custody 10 be entitled 10 tue custody thereof also
F d advised ard believes that tho sale by the Sheriff
pu.soi him valid tile the 'essf free OF Ill claims
~ OF tbe Marshal and tet the Marshal ma, Dy an order
Court ben.ered n these causes be drcctcdto ol
fuy appreciate unfortunate position Of this steamer
ald considered wA tie which are urged ~
support Of petition The Impressions formed upon the
1rulen are however consrmed and satired that the
tae fret place the petitioner il not in position to ene
bidder NJ tho Sheri bale who has not yet completed his bid
III M of The vessel viva h knowledge Of the Admiralty pro-
c,edc rgaus; her lie aye in Ms petition that he Is adj
, sid lrvcs tLat u De completes bis purchase he will
r,ar said tr.to the vessel lie docs that the
S.T Hlo unwilling 20 rat him IN possession on RECEIPT
o .r.u.Eicr %. tie purchase money IL Is not seen 0|
l,- ao- can ask this Colst 10 direct the Marshal to
sI-.t..crr g. h.Hn the possession OF Tie vcss'.
n M action OF ihc Marshal bed ieel lc o.. INT opery TO
d'T 'mbarrna' ae po.e a' pcc'e i- .il+ Hiair te
Sat. court COMPETENT 10 protect its ono aiA u Custody
O. g.. r,.c H ,1c c-umcd 10 have az a." rle-r 1 such
ce night pgp, Sii1 poP5e% ~ ~ lqiS Me- aP2a1 II 1,i Sr 'o. 20
tho tt CREDITOR Of ' re. eoe ha'r 1phCG 70
f-'. arsn - o., qlIt - -.e ,,lsn. "a Do a., sg & 20
tr s-r.-c D. p. p th Marshal proceedings in ;idmi
i ,fro- e. vessel sold by order OF the State
ol~ ui c aa.. appear fora u price under notice
n r' h done ~ is claimed IN the Admiralty causes
Ss- tr I.u the the creditors. complain
az p-uoa7 cur,so Of the powesPi the officer OF tn
,'ar. 1908 i.c the petitioner who has suffered no IN
E ord may have aay interest In the vessel claim TO be
& l...o' er reason for DENYING tsb application which
l t... . ns-a ,arDa which should not bc aduiicatod
t.,. 4oal. Tiai question D. whether the custody Of the
- r'uc %! warrant i.sl@i by an Gihccr aciins sla1r
@ s..er sufficient 10 prevent tse Court Of Admi
r.. -on acquiring pd'c''o- i'l a&nS am p.'io'e du.ls 'ne
serG bed failed 20 acquire Jurisdiction aud the
ir Is GAINED TO be tie narur, Of the sherirs custody in
i-, and aplr.s tat Ae first proceeding taken beoro
rt tc second coltass the defect and that the third
.. o.I- preceding previous to the MUssis attach
-t j. o,. 90 oeie, ons which may prove equally fatal It
40 m notcrd ,nt tic order o sale made y the State
,-lsrr unars p-ica tie petitioner cnnS vas so ma Do IN
ltlt ar t.t rrc!'fs thgt+hc Sh,d seized the vessel
, Ogt DOB which was subarqpou 10 the Maahas attachment
,, i, ,o.I f want ~ jurisdiction Nor DO examine hcso
u1rr h.r tIHn To sec that the objections taken ~ the
G .a th, POSITION raises aud on which tho rights o.
lo.'orlr boilers depends the theory Of to pctLion bo
% a,.oa' 4iitt oaG-oi De reviewed appeal
- ground tocosend that tho case raised anS
. 1ucs De- lan tie one decided II th' c,eo Iny Tor ny
Uri which he petitioner relics II might perhaps be the
.t -a,ic- ui.i tlc of Taylor agt Gary' In ta
,lsr pr, custody the custody of the Superior Court
ie a1 : tr Court decided that title derived from
sole Of tlr rrsss pssnhc BY Superior CONT Of the
ld Wien hc custody he State Court had been actual aud
continued better iita haH dependent the Mar
o., 3 .p,o ,Iirl decided Tavlor rgt Cayi" it must
lI' r % t Nv No. No. tit he c'9ioIy OF onv Siate oaircr
whether acting with vAout Jurisdiction s sufficient - oust
, ,c W f ,s uri,il,n is exclusive But in tie as-c5
81 anysae decision ly the supreme Court ar n Wow Of the
cds. OF such decision n eases of pl ~ cn.cs ,lr ire
Revenue and Soutsn,r laws and in tL, whrr 'i 'nt
cimri by the Petitioner 20 ioDsw, Noul b" 70 - te
tlcm rlu feel bound 20 20 decide ON motion ts iai
e.isrcc the decision by hral orc directing The - h I"
srrrrnttr pa.scss ion % the petitioner
50 i tbs implication has been treated application 10
te uterp ston Court 90 ayuda conflict between Fed
ca ano state authority but ho' qlt Gear InAI Ihl po.
ton presents OF conflicting jurisdictions Ihe H'crneht
Tie petitioner Is that tLc proceedings before the State oncer
have gone To sal OF me 1'aeI 20 MN ana .'. VIC
continued possession from his rst seizure up TO the sale TO
petitioner There definite nvclnent ~ any CUSTODY
by the Sheriff since the sale ana INC prayer y -L .he
deliver vessel the Sheriff butso the petitioner IL
which Is certauk amCuOu-io hold Rt 1t showed ne conflict
between Marshal and the Sheriff but that the controversy
sale II such be the nature Of the controversy no reason Is
discovered for determining 1t by summary order Ike the one
Ii dm,sng this application venture TO add 70 these
marks single observation IN the nope Tat The attention o o
Appellate Court before which this Win doubtless come
e source whence such conflicts as the present in regard
Hens uron shIs arise the Extinction between foreign and
domestic vessels laid dowH In lrG IN the case OF the General
smith Wheat, ia~). It that decision long considered by
p resort State enlvs and,giyes birth to snintes like &
oDc nyoycda which assumes "a foc'oso and cut
of by proceedings in me State Coart oil other lien creditors
except srnme including those having claims Of exclusive Ad
mirny pfiscton-o statute which creates sot OF Stato
Admiralty liable all times be brought In conflict with the
ratonalcour 10 which the Admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction
has been ascd under the Constituon-oi which staute
speak the fully many Of it, ieaturss originated with
when acting heherof Ge Legislature which passed
queuces the decision in the Of the General smith but
they would seldom be- rcsoed II the distraction OF
tie General smith ci BE- rccsnsdered and u held that ~
Is ne ship not The dipnl particular owner nor'the snip OF
particular flag national characters domestic shlp OF
foreign ship; ship IN port Of State 10 which she does
belong, or IN which her owner does not resldput snip
every ssp that bound for tho bl OF dng charter party
the Of the seamen repair supplies materials ana mari
Before Judge sMlILEY
ADLLGED MASsLAUGHTER n FoEEIGS PoRr-AcoUl1TAL
THE ACCUSED.
The United States agt. Lloyd Brown
The defendant eo0red was indicted Tor the man
slaughter Of James dempsey sesond mate Oh the Amefsa %
evidence oftwo .emc on board the bark time showed
that the defendant aud the msto had an aercaton on ths
himself from the mate and into the gey pursued by t9e
mate who In few minutes out OF he galley so r94y
stabbed that be Immediately expired There were no witnesses
what occurred in the galley The defense claimed ,na,
killed BY the defendant in sedeense 10 protect
himself IRON violent assault Of the mate M the galley
The jury returned q verdict OF not guilty.
= c. Courtney and Joseph Bell for u s. Judge culver au
John NJ. Staples for defendant
ALLEGED ATrEMPT TO OBTAIN A RRGIsrf1tED LElIEh bi
FRAUD AND RORGEY.
United States agt. C. w. Bradshaw.
The defendant indicted attempting on the 9Th OF lS
October obtain from the York Post Oce registered
letter addressed C. Bradshaw by fradulenty representing
himself as s. C. Bradshaw forging G. Brad name
10 receipt the letter The defendant was found guilty ana
remanded for sentence.