The national Republican., 1867-07-23
THE COURTS.

EQUITY CoURT-Chsef Justice CARTIER
The court mot at 10 o'clock yesterday, and trans.
acted the following business;
s42. Baltimore vs.. johnson. This Is bill TO
set aside deed to lot rs, In square 566, on @
street, near Second from the Corporation Of W ash.
ington to W. @. johnson. The bill alleges that
the plaintiff had, with her brother, been tho
beneficial owner Of the property since 1890, and
plaintiff had lived there since that time; that
taxes accumulated, and in 1855 the property was
advertised for sale that plaintiff employed Mr..
W. Slade to purchase IL for her, but that the de-.
fendant her SOM went to the sale and represented
to Mr.. Slade that be was going to purchase It for
his mother; whereupon Mr.. s. LEFT and defendant
did purchase and have deed, in 1854, made to
himself, which deed the bill seeks to set aside.
The answer denies that the representation Of Mr..
Slade is correct, and declares that the plaintiff.
with the knowledge and consent Of bis mother,
purchased the property in question, and after
waiting six years to give all parties chance TO
redeem, he took q deed to himself with the ap-
proval Of his mother. 1t appeared, also, that
the brother Of the plaintiff had, within the past
year, released to her his share Of the property.
timony, showed the same case Is the bill and ar.
swer.
Mr.. Davis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr..
Swami for the respondent.
The Court said this was o useless suit he was
sorry to see the colored people going to law
where little forbearanee and kindness would
have avoided II. The defendant had been, he
believed, good son to an old mother, and haA
provided for her wants, but he should have done
50, Tor he owed to her his existence and nurture,
Both would be great fools to exhaust thssr little
means upon lawyers, instead Of liviAe in peace
and improving their condition. The hgal aspect
Of the case was, however, sAA one which the
Court had to look at. even in a case where the
son had acted withoat representing that be was
acting for his paOthsr. II a son purchased at q
public sale FOR nominal price, the property Of
his mother, he would take 1t as trustee for hpr
beneht. The doctrine cannot ks too often re
peated in this country that the son, being. by
nature the Protector Of his aged parents, ca mot
legally use his posision TO acquire title AZ ainst
them. BUT while ths Court would decree that
the title obtained by tho son be for the teneGt
Of the mother yet as he had spent his own
money In the purchase she would be decreod to
repay him the purchase money and interest. A
decree was ordered to be entered accordingly.
soo' Gunton vs.. Mock. This is q case in
which the defendant has been restrained from
drawing from The United States Issasurr som.
twenty thousand dollarsi II being alfeeed that
certain creditors have liens theresa. The imm,.
diate proceeding was motion TO, dissolve tbe In.
junction, made after the sbioa bill had bssn
answered. Mr.. Ashford insisted that sueb mo.
tion could be made only St rules, and thai il
could not be disposed sfuntil the expiration of
sAS sa'AS tuo uoipuuhut 10 HE eAcoDtlODB
TO the sr..aelsncy of the answer. The further
Consideration Of the cause was postponed until
the "a Of August. 1t appearing, however, BY
the statement Of the Defence that some $25, 900
Is locked up by the injunction to secure . claim
OF ", 900 the Court rsopened the case, 50 far as
to consider that portion Of II to-day.
In the matter of the German Lutheran church
o. ueorgetoWn MIR. Jones, under the act Of June
~ 1879, hied relation Of the District Attor-
ney, settihs Iorth that in 1869 q church and
graveyard In Georgetown had been conveyed 10
trustees for the use Of the German Lutbsran
church, that the trustees had all died saye ons
and the church gone down, when on the 2I al ~
May, 1866, Mr.. Jas. Gozzler had been appontsd
sole trustee with view Of preserving lie pron.
erty which Mr.. g. had since done at III orn
expense. OF late however, the congregation ~
German Luthsrans in Georgetown had i..en
rived under the temporary past ...,n of RI. re re
stance of Mr. a .sgatiOn now, ~ the in
the folIo- o,z,or, wished to add ~. trustee
amad gentlemen: IohJI @. Kay
u.",, 4 Wisner, Henry A. kF isei and
r. wstnsriok. Tbs court entered u decree a'A'
for; ts;lz.yfomnsi..1lyvs VS. P'pn'is''h'' Order
puSunoAps paSn psws.s vs.. Devices. Order authOriEir
tbs taking Of testimony o.a.r ~ n,h,
90. sshysnsr vs.. ssrivsnsi ''''' " p'''
cation. Il, n.oree entered
proving and rstifyi9g Provi''0"A'' INV
Bsnkruptcy. No. 5. In re-, Benz D. 'ame
Order Of reference 10 Rsgistsr
The court then adjourned until TO-DAY
ORM,sAL CouRr-JusE TERh-Cht
Justice Carter. NO business appeared 70 oih