The national Republican., 1867-07-27
THE COURTS.

1
| w
THE COURTS.
EQUIrY CoURr-Chief Justice CARTIER
The court yesterday transacted the following
business
1853. Door, administriI Of Lewis Door vs.. J.
D, Wilson, Elizabeth Lake and Charles Barrett
This Is q petition for an injunction restraining
Wilson, one Of tho plaintiffs, from enforcing q
judgment obtained by him against the CON-
plainant a. ADMINISTRATIVE Of her husband. The
petition set forth that Miss Lake made her
promissory note Of ono hundred and eighty nine
dollars In payment Of certain goods, which note
the oomplainant's husband, upon the solicitation
and importantly Of the respondents, and upon
Wilson'S representation that the noto was merely
accommodation paper, and that Door would
| thereby assume no responsibility, endorsed tho
said note. Tho note was not paid, and pro-
| tested.
| Door dying shortly afterwards, suit was on.
tered against tho complainant as Administrative.
Miss Lake thereupon told the complainant not
To trouble herself about the suit that she would
sec that lawyers were employed and proper de-
fence made She accordingly took no further
| thought about the matter; but now finds that
judgment has been obtained against her. She
insists that the endorsement Of her husband was
obtained BY incorrect representations, and that,
within the knowledge Of Wilson, Doors implied
contract made BY tho endorsement was without
consideration and void. A demurrer was fled
to this bill, setting forth that supposing all the
facts stated In the bill to be true, they yet af.
forded no ground for the interference Of equity
with q judgment obtained at law.
Mr.. Thompson, for the complainant, argued
that the contract was void ono. and that as
Mrs. Door had been prevented from making her
defence at law, she had no remedy but In equity
Mr. Coz, for respondent, said that Il was no.
where set forth that Wilson was any party to
preventing Mrs. Door from making defence.
Fraud and accident are tho only grounds on
which equity will use Its power to interfere with
common law process. In this case the bill nj.
legged neither and was clearly liable to demurrer
The court held that In its present form the
bill set forth no cause for injunction, and sus
tained the demurrer, at the same time granting
to tho complainant leave to amend her bill.
6s3. Thomas Brown vs.. Clement Beckett. Gas,
passed over.
900. L. Devices vs. Alexander W. Devices
This 10 bill for divorce of the complainant from
the respondent, on tho ground Of desertiOn ant
, adultery.
The complainant sets forth in her bill that she
was married to Devices on the 26th Of June, 1859
and that they lived together for two yoars and q
!, half; that they had two children-Edwin Forres
and Irene; that Devices deserted her two years be
fore the hling Of her bill, and has since contrib
uted nothing to her support; and she has mad
Il
committed adultery with one Eliz, Rodier, re
siding at No. LOG Bridge street, Georgetown. II
July 1865, and has lived In criminal relation
with her since, having had by her two children
The complainant prays, therefore, that she ma.
be divorced from the bond Of matrimony witt
Devices and have the custody Of her children.
Mr. Thompson appeared for the complainant
). Tho respondent allowed proceedings to go b
default.
Mr.. Thompson read to tho Court tho follow
d ing testimony:
!, Helen Hayes. Witness resides In Washing
: ton; knows parties, complainant for many year.
and respondent since the marriage In June, 1881
They have two children, Edwin and Iron,
+ knows that Devices deserted his wife, and hl
: since contributed nothing to her support Th
L complainant Is q clerk in the Treasury Depar
mont, and her character Is irreproachabe.
Elizabeth Hatton. Witness Is 90 years Of ag,
: and has resided In Georgetown for so years Sh
. same house with them, No. LOG Bridge street
Georgetown. Mrs. Eliza Rodier, Mr.. and Mr.
a Dowees. all lived In the same house. Mr.. an
l. Mrs. Devices lived together there from July
. 1864, until june, 1865, when Mrs. Devices wa
driven away. Witness knows that the relation
II Of Mr.. Devices and EliIa Rodier wero very int
mate; has seen them In bed together sewers
times; they lived as man and wife. L. Rode
= had two children, which both she and Nj
= Devices acknowledged to be his children. Mr.
y Rodier kept the house; 1t was o boarding house
= Devices sent his wife away in 4 wagon.
. Francis Hatton. Witness Is the husband Of th
last witness; know the parties from 1852 to 1860
u Boarded with Eliza Rodier The parties live
y together until 1854, when Devices sent his viii
- away In q wagon.
The court suggested that there was no nee
y Of proceeding further with the testimony, an
u granted q decree divorcing the parties vineRl
niatrimonii, the wife to have tho custody Of th
children.
y I'll. McDuelI, ct al. VS.. McBusl, ct al Ordc
> appointing Robert MeDuell trustee to sell.
l0ll. Hooper vs. Bassett, ct al. Order az
. pointing John W. Olive trustee in place of "
10 s. Stone, deceased.
3 1887. Wilkinson, ct al. VS. Kerr, OF al Thi
Is an action brought by old lady to sec ure th
u execution Of what she claims is the true inten
70 Of devise Of life estate In some property mad
!. for her benefit. II seems that portion Of th
II property the nse Of which she claims, has passe
y since through the hands Of several purchasers
D. The question as to whether the purchasers kne'
her right is involved In the case. An interlocr
tory order granting to Flanagan, one of the de
@ PENDANTS, leave to amend his answer wa
10 granted.
) Joslin vs. Joslin. Order allowing petitioner
10 sue in forma paHperiS This Is an order granite
o to persons in INDECENT circumstances, directing
n In order that justice may not be hindered b
l. reason Of the parties poverty that all eficers
It the court shall perform their work withou
n charge. The complainant in this case sues fc
Is divorce.
n The court then adjourned until this morning.
CRIMINAL CoURr-JUNE TERM-Chie
y Justice Cartter.-The court yesterday acted upO
l. but one case.
}, United States vs.. Chas. L, Durham alias Sar
d ford Conover. Tho motion to postpone the exc
cution Of tho sentence In this case until the di'
% posal Of q motion for new trial came up an
's was overruled.
j. The court adjourned until to-day
~ HABEAs CoRPUs-Before Chief Justic
Carter.-N. II. Miller filed yesterday IN appl
y cation for writ Of ha6edS corpus in the case {
y Daniel Kramer.
. The application alleged that Kramer had bee
'" arrested upon the warrant Of Justice WilliaI
Martin, by County Constable A. l., Allen, an
that that officer now held him by direction
Justice Martin, but without authority of law
|, and wrongfully.
y Mr.. Miller insisted that Officer Allen had n
n n right to arrest under Justice Martins warrant
!, He had arrested, however, and the trial ha
a been proceeded with before Justice Martin, VIII
~ rave KrameF In eharQa Of Officer Allen. IL wa