The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-10-15
THE COURTs.
EeuTrr CouRr = Judge Wylie. - The
,ourt held q session IN Saturday last.

EeuIrr CouRr - Judge Wylie. - The
court held session IN Saturday last
Tbs 6llowinsc ns were disposed off,
1908 Solomon W, CLARK, ct !. This 10 the case
mentioned . day or two .iace in which the eouT,
granted an iDj melton to prevent Marshal ooodips
from .er'ns aod selling o'itsin property Of one Js,
Mr.. n. n. Miller moved to dis, olive he injupetiop
because no proper mi melon bond had be. nlsd.
The motloa was opposed by NJ O. g. Baker.
The court said that the uncon had beeu granted
TO prevopt fraud, and the oppression Of poor col.
ored mhn There wa. no 70 son for a large penalty
IN the ipJunetos I'D, and in order not 10 allow tho
poor man 10 be oppressed for wapt OF means /, give
ieavy surety. he wooid tx the penalty Of the boad
eth This 10 a motion to Dissolve an Injunction
granted on the 9TH day OF August, By Judse Cartier
restraining the defendant from drawing from tb,
I. easury Of the mi cd States eertsin moneys dus
being alleged that the plaintiff has spec DC Lien
thereon the defence being that such lieu was the
tult Of contract which was obtained BY fraud The
,ubstautal facts appe,re' In Its spit me published
10 this paper 10 August last the occasion Of the
granting Of the Injunction. Tottsn for the motion,
Hon Caleb Gu hing opposed
Mr. Tottsn argued, first that the answer OF the do.
fendants had sworn away the equities 81 the plain
ufs bill aud tia therefore he hsd cass In court
second thst as II was proven that pay men had been
made to Mr. Merrlmsn, INT partner Of Mr.. Lane,
that payment wa. a release as to both partners.
The bill too was sw!ru to not BY the patty who
had knowledge 81 the facts, bot by his agent, who
e1uld have no such knowledge.
Mr.: Cushlpg argued thst an IL Junction granted by
the chancellor at.r the coming In Of the answer
should not DO d SOLVED witho a change In the
hets, and that In which the defendant had
admitted tho facts Of the b aud relied on matter Of
yo,d.nee merely had court Of equity dissoved az
occurred and the facts Of th. bill admitted aud
sought to be avoided by Mr.. Gibbons This equity Of
the bill had not been met fairly, aud waa therefore
not .wora away. As to the afdavit Of the sgsut OF
Mr. Lane It was not necessary that there should be
anx sfidavit; the signature q counsel alone would
sufnce.
During the progress Of the esuss, Mr Cushing
sought to Introduce sfdsyits to SUI tain the bill Mr.
To't'n objected, and he Court ruled that such evil
dsueo was insdmi'sible at this stage Of the pro-
eeedipg.
Ths Court pronounced It's Judgment, In substance,
Tho dissoiving Of an ipJupction like tho grating
81 Que, was question for the Courts discretion,
under all the circumstance Of each case There wac
no inhexible rule upon he subject II was true
that when an answer ,wore away tho equity OF a
bill, so that no equity appeared to favor continu
ancs Of the To- uncti"u must be dissolved bat II
10 the light OF all the facts OF the case the Chancellor
saw that the ioj junction. was needful to the attain
msnt Of Justice, he would look upon the sqaty Of
tho bill as Intact Tho present case woqld bo looked
st In that way When = man was siek he was nnE.
ious fnr a doctor, aud when he was In trouble he
wanted counsel, aud In both cases very free In
bis offers to pay fees But when the t Oubls va. wa.
neglected their duty aud to dispute heir Inst olaims
Il appeared In this case that Gibbons had q claim
through the Court OF Claims; ,S,t Lane tooS he
contract at that rate aud hat IN the end the cl i'm
one half Of which had been sold for ~ OO0-realIsd
about s25 900 Lane, although no lawyer, might
have contributed materially q this result and the
Coirt would give him the benefit Of holding the
fund Intact until he could be heard The ipjupc.
81, Des,.au vs. Kaiser. The report OF the Audi.
tor being found correct, the Court entered an order
rat Tying the same.
was appointed guardian to defend the interests Of
the nftbt defendants In this suit ADD the ssements
therein were referred to the auditor for examination
1850 Ysates 4 sslby Va. ssitI ct al The defend.
ant having let the city notice Of this suit was or
dered to be publishsd
$40 Gibson va Gardusr 1t being Necessary In
this suit hat certain books, papers, &c In the pos
session Of Of the parties should be produced be
msnt having been given, and the book. &c. not
having been produced, ths Court entered an order
directing their production
SIS National Metropolitan Bank ", MeClurg ct
al. In this decree was entered for the sale Of
the defendants real estate.
SIS Won Essen vs. Warning ct al. Decree for
Se2s United States at the relation Of Mcpherson
VS. blsg en- ct al. In this case motion for judg'
mrnt on demul rer-the defendant alesiug that even
II the facts are all true The plaintiff has no cause OF
action.
The Court considering that the question was Of
sufficient Importance and novelty, on motion remit
ted TO the Judgment Of all the justices In general
term
Ss2 Wan Riswiek Va, Lynch. Decree for sale Of
real estate
81 Ia. Law Fisher vs.. Perkins The deelAra-
iou or sAiement Of the reason Of suit in thisS
having by bssn lost the Court granted leave
for the plaibtG's attorney to file new declaration
200 wheAtly ct al va Thompson ct a. Thl. cam
up for hnai action and thersupon decree for ~ SO
was entered against the defendonL
SIS kansbury VS. wAlIRoh. Demurrer TO the bill
override :, aud rnle to answer
1867 la the matter Of the petition Of Julia Ann
Forrest guardian peeree entered eouh ming an order
Of the orphans Court for the sale OF Infants real
estate.
iOi2 Pierce VS. ball. The bill In this case Is dis
missed and the suit 10 stopped.
The Court then adjourned until court In course.