The national Republican., 1867-12-02
THE COURTS,

THE COURTS.
SUPREME CouRT-GENErGL TERN-thig Jus-
hce Cartier and Judges 0iin, Ftsher ana Wgite.-
ren on Sotos Of H. Saes Coon Sadss ve Bou
Of Rockville, was admitted to the bar OF the Dis
ii. b. Phiibrook Of the Vermont bar, was, on
motion o. Mr., Norris, admitted to the bar Of this
District. Inn,
g. H. Ciagett was appointed by The court
county constable for this county upon the Ger.
tiStGts ~ Justice Thompson and others
Bvrne vs. Davis. S'TS{ In re saissis,t, which was de-
cldcd in favor OF the plaintiff on satartry last,
Mr.. philips presented decree, referring the case
what amount had been paid by plslntr as usury,
said decree to become final upon the filing OF the
auditors report without exceptions.
THE GEORGETOWN BUTCHERs' CASE.
Homiller ct al vs.. the Mayor OF Georgetown.
Judge wylie read the opinion Of the court, of
which the following IL an abstract:
The controversy ls as to right OF the corpora
tion OF Georgetown to compel butchers to use a
particular place to sell meat by forbiddlng them
stances attending the building OF the new market
house at Georgctown with the facts attending
the establishment Of the butchers at the tobacco
warehouse, thelr taking out license as green
grocers, and their refusal to take stalls In the
new market house, together with the refusal Of
May, 1851, TO grant further licenses to green
grocers, with q view to compel the butchers to
take stalls In the new market house Of the re-
| fines imposed on the butchers for carrying on
business illegally by the local magistrates OF
The court showing from Coke and Blackstone,
| set out the common law exclusive right Of the
| corporation to establish markets, and the power
| OF the people to control the mode Of exercising
that right, the court then says at is very true
| that corporations Of al klrds are nmcnabie TO
the courts in proper. cases. But these are eages
| always involving the assertion Of right or tht
punishment or prevention OF wrong. No party
can obtain standing In court whose case is not
his Wron1 and " that % To himssn indyduSip III prIMy M
viii not be allowed to volunteer as champion Of
the public interest on mere question Of conye-
| The corporation In refusing licenses to green
Erocers violated no contract, nor could the action
OF the corporation have been any surprise to the
| complainants. They knew well that the power
| to establish and regulate markets had been cN-
crcised for more than nfty years.
building was S5o,O0o, and thnf by means OF the
butchers action, Its reterue, which should have
been over $1,000, Is diminished I'd less than $500
| per nnnum, the Judge continues II must DC
| obvious that the present Ia vital struggle In
respect TO this subject. II tho butchers succeed,
the power Of the sorPPorSatin to establish and
dead. The public can no lcnger be protected
| from the frauds Of vendors In the use Of light
weights and short measures or In selling un-
| wholesome provisions as veil as numerous
other cOntriSances OF which the public must
be a prey in crowded marlct-plNce conducted
without public inspection Hid on the rascally
The other ground of the pplieNtion, to wit:
5s the sTSs nna wss Sou; va s
| condemned rs nuisance, tho Court do not con-
slider germanc to the case. The Jurisdiction of
| the court to prevent multiplicity OF suits au-
thorizcd them to decide this case, and they did
so by refusing the injunction iskcd for.
THE sosCAL RAScIH CASE.
| Whitney VS.. Frisbic. In tlis case, which has
| already been several times re,orted, Judge Wyle
| said that the case had been argued as though Il
were an action to decree tina one OF the parties
| hold rho land In utipRtiOH hp har
| The Court had made up Its mind upon this sub
lect, but, upon looking at tic pleadings, 1t was
| decree concluding the rightsof all parties could
be made. In this view, the cturt directed that the
case be sent back to the SPECIAL term, with direc-
| tions to allow the plaintiff tohlc supplemental
bill
Judge olin dis.entcd from the majority Of the
court, holding that the Fribic title had vested
| before Whitney's prc-emptionrgh was perfected.
| He held that II was not COED practice to send
| back case for supplemental bill to be filed,
| when no application had BEEN made for leave to
file such bill. He thought tie bill should be dis
| missed.
| plated merely to announce hat the Court had
found In the state OF the pleidings an obstacle to
final judgments 1t had not ben intended to enter
into inc merits 81 me case TINS stage OF PRO.
given to sustain the position of the majority of
the Court. II Is sufficient fer the merits OF this
case to say they will be considered at the proper
time, The ease was remaided to the special
| term.
| TnE SARAH EDELiNwlLL CASE
| This case comes up upoT an appeal from the
Orphans Court admitting the Viii or sarah
Edelin to probate.
Judge Fisher read the opinion of the majority
ofthc court, rev iewing the action of the Orphans'
court, and declaring the will In question In
valid. Judge Fisher gees at tngth into an GX-
stood to the party at whose Instance the will
vas executed AS well as the circumstance
RnS,sas TS%a be Sr 9 tGG
mcntary capacity of Sarah Eielin Is sustained,
and draws therefrOm the conclusion that the tes-
tator was not In n condition to make a will at
the time she executed the one before the court
Judge Olln, who dissented from the opinion OF
the majority Of the court, Rad a very lengthy
opinion, quoting largely from the testimony, and
coming to the conclusion that the will was prop
crly executed and the testatiix not legally Inca
oyc had bSsn most scneTo to tc hsd sst nv
| and that there was no proof whatete ter that In
procuring the execution Of tic will he desired to
| secure the slightest advantage to himself
Judge Wyle said that thcwoman had served
his turn during her life and when she died her
property would be made to come to him. and not
to her relations. The fact fhe was kept always
| under the influence of opium, and that she was
proved to have uttered no nrtlculate sound, nor
done any Intelligent act for several hours pre-
yious to the execution Of the will, was satisfac-
| tory proof of her want of competency. The will,
after wandering round through various names,
| settled the property at last upon Coylc. When
| man had taken woman from the reputable
| relations Of life, had deprived her Of chances of
| marriage, and confined her lIfc to the narrow
circle Of his pleasure, he did not think 1t was
reasonable that she should leave all her property
to him, even though 1t had been purchased with
| his money.
| The Chlcf Justice was not on the ben Oh at the
hearing of the appeal and took no part in its
| decision.
| JUslyn vs.. .IOsyu, This In an application for
| RlimOny, pGHdcRifWr, which comes Zip on appeal
| from the court below granting the application.
| The defendant contends that the plaintiff was
| divorced from him by an Ohio court some time
| since. The point In controversy Is the validity
| of the Ohio divorce, which was obtained with
| out actual notice to the wife. The Court sus-
tained the decision Of Justice Wylie In the court
| below, the chief Justice dissenting. The Court
| then adjourned siac die.
| CIHCUIr COIGr-t'HIEF JI-TICE CARTIER
The Circuit Court held short session on Satur-
day.
TIIE roiNT ~ ROCKS RAILROAD.
Nos 1915 Il seq, Gales dGi, vs.. Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company. The inquisitiOn Of the
Jury summoned some months ago to assess the
value OF the lands In this District over which
passes the Point Of Rocks branch of the Balti-
more and Ohio railroad, and which the law does
not make final until II II cOniiFmcdhy the Circuit
Court, was presented for the approval of the
Court.
The statement Of the awards made were pub
lishcd In this journal at the time they were made.
The awards made to J, Mctiuire, George W.
Talbot, Henry Quccn,t. II. Wiltbcrger, aud Mrs.
Christina Turner were confirmed without OppO-
sitiOn, the parties asserting thereto.
Exceptions were filed In the eases Of Mrs,
Gales j. Berry, Col, Brooke, and ). Stott, blythe
land nFOprietOFs on the ground that the dam