The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-11-16

lied in the case Of Field Halnes, the before
Field VS. Haines % was Attempted to Be dstinEus6ed
~ m the case OF the complainant on the ground that
officer Of. the Institution. This point,
howesysr: falls out q Che question under der
nnth section Of the ordinance OF september 49, lsIL
the President, the matron, and the steward, dis
tngnished from sovernesses, teachers and phys.
ss5 much sd sn oeer o. t9s nsttnSn as is toe Pfesl
the very case which the complainant has brought up
The judgment Of the supreure Court settles-
trsL That by the terms Of the ordinance those who
are elected under it hold during the pleasure Of the
Second. Tha. there is nothing In the will OF Mr..
Girard that Orbids the removal officers aud agent
OF the College at the pleasure OF the Trustees OF the
Third; That to the admlnistrators Of the trust is
need exists that the places OF nstructors teacheTs
assistants and other nee ssary agents." selected by
the Directors. shan be supp led.
-, | may be allow, d to siy that, in my opinion, no
rightly exractea from the will Of Mr.. GirRrd. con-
be subvt rsve Of the government the institution
% EyehFow err G OF s pro er auhory and therefore fatal
But the question viii suggest ITSELF Are the Directors
delpha, who the trustees OF this charity wholly
@ n ther & &sSt9n and beyond the restrain.
gwen in the negative.
The remedy in a case Of gross fraud or abuse of
whether corporation or an individual All the ofice,
Woodward, 6 Wheat. 076 The Society etc VS. Ne W
The act Of our own fssSStare S Of February H. 1873
the acts OF 1928 and 1873 give express authority 70 the
property for religious literary, and charitable pur
c6ancery act Of 18th Of June 1889. every case Of
trustees for use Is within the powers of the
courts Of Pennsylvania as fully as the chancery of
Code Of pennsylvania in their report say:-'so lar
ss regsrdsthe appointment removal, or discharge OF
G6sneery and may exercise them in the case of char
In Whitman VS.. Lex, II, s, and r. SO, decided in
l27 i vas held that by force Of our common law the
In chRncery In England oh ain here. The same point
affirmed, by the Supreme Court OF the United States
in the case of Vidal ct sl, vs.; the City Of Phiade
1t would be waste OF time to multiply authorities
upon this point and those clted referred the
purpose of showing that this charity fully protected
by the law and that the power OF the Court ample
Trustees, and appoint others TO ad minister the trust
OF the Court to interfere the form in which t has
been Invoked, which it Is unnecessary now 70 decide
liam II. Allen denies fully the charge Of having soil
the coes and to say uPSeq that If hs bad o9e sS 81
II would be no ground for granting n injunction
Injunction refused
Upon application OF William Il. Mauu, the Court
the month The Judges decline to refer the cases 10
mem TN m beTs s s @ ~ m pc ogteT ~ for
that the questions of law should be decided as they
afterwards without running to the Court for intOr-
nation.
COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS-Judge Peirce.
The usual Saturday business was before the Court
to-day. go
Gdrmiey and Michael Kelley VS. Commodors st. Sci,
fridge before reported Judge Peirce read the opinion
AUTHORITIES in support of the doctrine OF concurrent
jurisdiction in the state Courts In cases OF illegal
The Jurisdiction had been exercised by the State
Courts ever since the foundation OF the Government
The doctrine affirmed by the Constitution OF the
writ Of corpus should not Be suspended Snies
In times of invasion. rebellion, etc The habeas cor
Courts for at that time the State Conrts the only
Ing been eslabiished until two years afterwards
therefore they had no inherent jurisdiction these
cases, but only that which was acquired by statu-
j he opinion was quite lengthy and. as was before
stated cited long list OF authorities in Its own
fRe Commonwealth ex rel. DIR. William Rasch VS.
ne h a M Isds h s' or his W T na9SSs S sued
larceny DIR. Berens testified that the reator his
ree 70 spGy had Of ana h1a ro
He, Or; Berens had three Five twenty bonds Of the
Isl Issue Of Jg1e s ISS m Which h he placed Gder hts P9w
ring the cay; there % was only one Instance that he
bonus from his bed to the secretary, and then tieS
were 9g ps by his servant In Febr1ary March and
and usually LETT the city ia the O'clock tran IN the
the meantime leaving the relator in charge of his
lie saw his bands, as best he could remember about
the last of MaIch and missed them Easter; before
s6 @ for @ he bee wUs
make me ihe pT0seG9tesS GU sweat he then placed the
tive force the numbers of bonds were 1850 1855
and 7479, and there only series of them: Id
the secretary with these bonds were stocks, nominally
OF the value OF s5OOo0, which likely attract
the attention Of an ordinary burgari but these
not disturbed.
Mr.. Franklin testified that upon receiving the case
into his hands he made examination OF the Be-
creary, and found that the lock could not have
opened by a skeleton key. The relator then said he
had no knowledge whatever of the bonds the bonds
were advertised, and notice OF them issued 70 the
brokers; they were not heard from until the follow
ing September, when notice received from Wash.
ingon OF these bonds had been presented by
an insurance company t was traced from the insur-
ance company to Nicholas Bowen IL Co.. Wall street,
and a cheek was received from them, bearing the
lRtor'B signature.
The relator acknowledged the signature, and said
be had received the check for collection from
Otto whose signature also endorsed upon IL. He
said he Ottob address, but never produced him.
The hearing was continued until next Saturday,
In order to have Mr.. Bowen from New York, whose
testimony, IL was said, Will be very material.
The Comm onwe ealth ex rel. Thomas Parry vs. The
Sheriff writ OF habeas corpus for the discharge of
the reatoT from a charge OF embezzlement The evil
dence established the fact that the relator the
Secretary elect of the Welsh congregation at Twelfth
and Fbert and had charge of its books goods,
etc. division In the congregation took place. and
the reatOr held the articles In his custody behalf
OF party, and refused to deliver them up TO the
opposite party when demand was made. he was
therefore discharged.