The national Republican., 1867-11-14
THE COURTS,
EoUIrr CoURr-Jndgs Wyhe.-The followin
cases occupied the time OF this court yesterday:

THE COURTS.
EouIrr CouRr-Jndgs Wyhe-The following
cases occupied the time Of this court yesterday:
DIVORCE cAsEs.
No.97l. VIM Gereeke vs. Anna Gereeke.
This is action for divorce Of the plaintif from
In his depostions that while he was III Of the rhou
matism as to be unable to leave his bed, and In
the words Of his wife excusing her conduct totslly
In bis own house with lis clerk, George stsinbrissc,
aud afterwards leaving him without. food, medicine,
fuel, went of with her paramour, boasted Of being
enctente by him, and now lives In adultery In Phil
| adephla.
There was no defence, and the court decrsed a dl.
vorce rincuto 'ndtrimsnff. fendall for plaintiff.
| 935. Anderson VS. Anderson.
| 1t appeared in this case that tho defendant had
committed adultery on board Of canal boat, aud In
divers other places, and that he was In the habit VI
assault!ng and maltrsatbg his wife. The Court do.
| creed divorce a vfnculo md'rfmonft Judge Craw-
sss Muiioney vs. MulIoaey. This case was 4 rule
| to shsw cause why alimouy should not be paid dc.
fsndant, and upon return setitg forth satiBfactory
| matter, was discharged.
| IMPROPERLY REcoRDBo PAPERS NOT coYsrRrcTfvR
NOTICE.
1907. VIM. Il. Parker VS. Bladder
This Is an application for junction to restrain
the defendant from enforcing an encumbranee upon
certain estate Of creditor OF both parties, the
plaintiff clAim ng to be prior hereon.
Il appeared that Parker had assigned a lease to the
creditor, and to be paid for at sS5 month for 100
months, raying also tlO0 per month rent till the
| whole WAS PAID Tor. Thef0 amounts were secured
by deed OF irust which set out the whole sum as
rent at SO per month for seven years. The stamp
upon this deed was bat u 90. ln the meantime the
assignee Of the loase reme sale married and gave
second deed Of trust to the defendant, subsequent
| creditor.
being recorded, was constructive notice
The defendant argued that the deed. not being
sufficiently stamped, was not legal record and could
| not operate as q constructive notice.
The court oyerruled the motion for an injunction.
$50. Todd va. Hallman. Formsl order made.
sll. Power vs.. Power. The tru tees sale In this
case was ratified by the coart
So Rlggs vs. Smith. Formal ratification Of trus-
sonnensehmidt vs. Fugitt ct al. Decree against
absent defendants, and the papers referred to the
| creditor,
9i4. Ballenger VS.. B,llsnger. Decree naming A.
| Lloyd trustee TO sell real estate.
1885 Mcdonald vs. Prathsr. This eaSe was re-
red 20 the creditor to report upon the proprety oil
| q sale Of rsal estate.
SIS Dalton vs. Daltoa. Tho trustses tale made
In this case ratified
$50. Purdy vs. surIAtt ct al. Trustees sale of real
| estate ratified.
amended bill upon complainant.
$40. Lee Va. Rapley. Geo ?. Appieh grants an ad
| Item.
997. Manssll VS. Mapsell. Order pro confeSso VS.
Joha and Joana hansell, and reference to special
| Commissioner CAruSi.
1907. Brown VS.. Brown. Case referred to auditor
7sS. johnson vs. Johnson Drccroo for convey
: ance
0 IO9I Everett Vs. Everett ct al. order Of publieA'
tiou.
|, At three o'clock the court adjourned until thi
, mOrnlDg.
. CIRCUIT CoURr-Chier Justice Carittr.-Tbi
court sat yesterday, and asad upon butiness as fol
lowe:
, rAsEy v. mrasox
Pasoy brings suit agaiust Hensoa for 70 for worl
and labor done In plA'tsrlnk portion Of Hsn,on
house Henson denlOs that he Is 50 Indebted, aver
ring that though the pasIeTlng was done II Yves
under a contract not with Pasey but with one
therefor.
1t appears Ia evidence that though there is a
written contract with Cooper 1t does not cover tho
work done BY Passy. and that Henson ted PAsey to
| 60 on with the work.
The case was submitted without argument
The Chief Justice charged the jury that II man
saw workman engaged in repairing or Improving
his property, and no permitted that work to go on
the law viewed promise on his part to pay fer !!
| what was reasonable. And II he sought 10 avoid
that burden, the was him to prove that some
other party wa. liable therefore, by reason of con
Lloyd for plaintiff; Webb and Clarke for defend
ant.
All. Clarke Mills. appellant, vs. Arthur wtIle.
ben, appellant Appeal from Justice. WitIleben
sued Mills for rent Of stable, alleging an agreement
the part Of Mills to pay him IS per month there
for Mills denied that he had reutedthe stable aver:
placing his carriage in the stable. for which he
The justice decided against MttaeLon, and he ap.
The Court, having heard the evidence, said he
know both parties were man OF Integrity, bat there
such discrepancy in their Iecolleetons that he
would be compelled to adjust the equities Of the
case independent Of their momCries IL seemed that
ts per month would be about compensation for
the ocsup ncy OF the stable This for hree months
and half would be SO 90, and the Judgment Of the
Justice was reversed and Judgmsnt given for tsis
amount
: rHE COMMON LAW OF POTOMAC FISHERIES ApJuDIcATEI
| kuight 4 Gibson, apps!leeE VS.. Charles Cant
This Is an appeal from the judsment iOi the a'tieo
against the Rppe Ice, for wages claimed by the ap'
| pellAnt as hand on a fishing shore
IT appeared that the appaleos hired Cant on th1
LIST Of March that he went down to the shore o1 that
day, aud during h month Of Mach was employed
In arrangements preliminary 10 the fisheries. ON
the lst Of April the seins was DIPPED and tho l'hipe
begun ari continued during April and May. Cant
was paid r April aud May, aud received u extra.
The apPelless claim that II was the uIiyersal and
we'll Known eu.iS Of the Potomac fisheries 10, 70 70
the laborers being In the m'anwhle boarded froe,
ard doing the preliminary work without pay. This
but was cOntradiCtsd by f.w persons who had
similar claims with Cant.
After argument by Mr.. Bne for appellant, and
Mr.. Fendal for appolless, tho Chief Jusics was
going to leave the case where The parties had left
He thought the evidence established reasonable
custom sanctioned by time, and the Court would
construe ashug contract by the light Of t. But II
was said that the labor OF fouoding hthiGg shore
did not come within the custom. This was true,
But such u custom raised notice Of 1t, and this Is
cone luslye that the time they worked they knew
that their pay was 10 commence only with the drop.
ping OF the seine Theh lnets was Iul receipt
In full Of all these facts tue Court reversed the judy
ment Of he justice and thus gave Judicial sanction
to the common custom OF the river Potomac, who
can plead the exemt ton law,
| 4i7 Laukton 3 sinsbuTy vs. Thomas Leary. This
appeal turned upon the construction OF ths law rO.
Gently passed by COuTgess exempttng certain prop.
erty from execution LsaIy claimed that, although
non resident OF the District, yet Es tho Tnit was
entered a, his property, house, SEIZED here he was
| entitled to the benefit Of the exemption
| The Court held that the exemption was privilege
conferred by Congress upon residents Of this District
| only N. II. Miller for Appsllee.
The following cases are cIlendarei as settled:
| 1879 Haasr Va. Brown,
| 2OSB Kelly VS.. Naylor
| 80 WOrster. VS. Kaiser
And tat o'cOek) the cOurt alIOnrned until this
| mOruDg.
"TUL LIP" A n D "R 0S E