The national Republican., 1867-08-08
THE tNUIeTN.

| EQUITY COURT-Cntq justice CurWer.-
The court yesterday transacted the following
business;
@. Lane vs. Gibbons and Kelley. Rule 10
show cause against an injunction restraining
tho plaintiff from drawing certain moneys from
the Treasury Of the United States
This application grows out Of q contract which
the bill alleges was made BY the defendants with
the plaintiff, BY which the former agreed to pay
the latter rs per cent on and out Of such amount
The bill statss that t25, $40 was received, and
the plaintiff claims 80, 202 under the contract.
| Tho answer Of Gibbons admits the contract,
but alleges that II was obtained by the fraudu.
lent representations that the plaintiff was law.
yer, and that II would be necessary to disburse
At least is per cent, all which Gibbons alleges
Is untrue. Kelley answers that he never made
or authorised the making Of any such contract.
Both answers deny that Lane performed the ser.
vice he contracted for, and aver that other coun.
sci had to be employed In the case.
Col. Totten held that the answer swore away
the equities Of tho bill, and left the plaintiff
without Q case In court on which to base his in.
Mr.. Whitney, attorney In fact, who knew neither
Of the defendants, and could Of his own knowl.
edge state nothing Of the contract. The answers
were sworn to BY the defendants, and at this
point In the case were taken as true by tho law.
Mr.. Cushing said that II was the common Gus.
tom Of courts Of equity for attorneys at law to
sign bills u attorneys At law can, JoytiVrt, an
esse, II was the fraud Of Gibbons, who repre-
sonted to Lane that Kelley was bis copartner
and that he had power to make the contract for
him, and then alleging In his answer that he had
no such power. Tho answer did not meet the
contract. II did not mention that the contract
was not with Lane alone, but with Merriman
also, who was q lawyer. Thus II left out an i'm.
portant fact In the case.
The Court said Here Is contract which es.
tablishes an equitable lien on q specific fund
The contract 10 alleged to be fraudulent. This
Is an Independent defence, and Is set up in avoid
ance Of the contract As such II should be sup
ported BY extrinsic proof for this matter, set up
In avoidance, docs not stand on tho same ground,
on an injunction, as issuable matter set out In
the answer In an ordinary case. At all events,
IN injunction for twenty days would work no
great harm.
The Court granted temporary injunction, to
expire upon further hearing Of the cause, to be
made on the 27th Of August. The Temporary
Injunction compels tho defendants to leave
g. 202 In the Treasury, to abide the issue Of the
} hearing on the 9th inst
1925 James F. Wollard VS.. John D. Ellis ct al
Decree divesting defendant Of and yesting plain
: tiff with title to portion Of lot 3O in square
1906.
$50. Emma Seibert VS.. Nina Uhlman. Decree
, substituting Alfred schuking in place Of Q. ],
T Uhlman, deceased, as trustee in certain deeds o.
trust from Selma Seibert.
sls. Benjamin Sunny VS. John P. Dickensor
OF al Sale made by Commissioner Fendall con
frmed.
573. George W. Utermehle VS.. Adolph F
Lippard ct al. Decree confirming order pro con
Jssso against defendants, and referring case tC
Commissioner Cox to ascertain and report tn,
= amount Of defendants indebtedness to plaintiff
l The courts then adjourned until this morning
: CRIMINAL CoURT-JUNE TERM-Chie
Jnsties Cartte.-The court holding this tern
has limited Its action to proceedings not final
As tho jury drawn for the trial Of criminal cause
were chosen in Q manner not recognised by law
the Chief Justice discharged them some week
ago. No trials can, therefore, take place at thi
term Of the court and upon the inai close Of th
|. March term, in which the Surratt trial is i
progress, the business Of the juno term will, "
learn, be finished at once, and the Criminal Cour
!. closed until December term.
On yesterday tho following order was made
United States vs.. Lucinda johnson.
The prisoner was committed to jail on the
inst. by Justice Walter, charged with keepin
bawdy.house.
,d Charles Kimbel having given bail in the su
Of $50 for her appearance at the December teri
70 tho court directed that she be discharged fro
IN custody.
IN Tho court adjourned until this morning.
,e In CHANBERs-Before Chief Justi,
y Cayttey.-A number of patent cases were pr
40 sented to the Chief Justice yesterday, and d
n \ cided as follows:
~ ~ A. Whiteley, assignee of Haines' moving mi
8, inc reissue Appeal from Commissioner
a. Patents in a decision in the case Of an applici
l. tion for the reissue Of patent. Clayton for 81
a. pellanti Combs opposing. Decision rJainst 81
Il pellant upon the ground that he had assigne
Of away bis right pending the application.
A. Whiteley, assignee Of John ]. Weeks In
proyements 10 harvesters. Appeal from Il
Commissioner Of Patents upon the reissue
division D; divisions A D G Of the patent ha'
ing been ressued. This case turned upon II
point whether after patent was surrendered
with view to Its reissue in several diyision
and one or more divisions thereof had been n
issued, 1t was competent for tho office, after
lapse of some months, to reissue another div
sion Of the surrendered patent. The Commii
sioner ruled against the supplemental reissue
and hence tho appeal. Mr.. Combs held that tn
reissue of new patents carried of all the vitalit
Of the old ono, and left It dead. The ne'
patents wero but the old one In new forms, an
both could not exist together life passed froI
one into the other, and the birth of the ne'
patent was necessarily the death Of the old. A
we'll contend that child born this year was tn
offspring of q mother who died last year, as
hold that reissue could proceed from q dea
patent.
Mr.. Clayton argued that II the functions of
patent were divisible, as they were In oil case
where q reissue In divisions was practicable
each division of the patent represented portio
only Of its functions, and SO long as the reissue
divisions did not exhaust all the capacities G
tho old patent 1t was not dead. In this cas-
divisions A, D and G did not represent all th
improvements comprehended in the originG
part. A residue still remained and this resdu
J. II was desired to reissue in the form of dvsio
D. The court held that the reissue was the civ
death Of the old patent. Henceforward it wa
D, unetus e6feiO, and no right could grow out Of
or be predicated upon it As in this case div
sion D was applied for several months after th
life of the patent had been drawn out by tn
reissue Of division A, D and c, the Commissions
did right in refusing tho reissue, and the apPeH
was, therefore, not sustained.
Gage 4 Whitley, assignees of VIM. Gage
Improvements In Harvesters. Appeal froI
Commissioner Of Patents in refusing to reissu
divisions and y. Same counsel. Advers
decision because the commissioner had not take
final actioni but had merely refused to allow th