New-York tribune., 1867-08-24
CIVIL COURTS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
r.El
OPINION or JUDGE BLAT NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
INTERESTING CUES )NS OF PRACTICE.
IA 1 TaHa Tte rig Aute

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
OPINION or JUDGE BLAT~ NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
INTERESTING 9UES }SS OF OF PRACTICE
RI,TcUFORD, J.-1his is motion to set
aside decree entered in October 1860, dismissng the
libel in this and an order entered IN January lSG
nceup The bond the discharge OF the vessel,
and TO set the down for trial The libel was filed IN
October 1885, to recover for s1r te Vesei On
and used In building her, or the value OF AI99'
claim ana sPSaSs GoDgrs iOr D doSbe the the amount
claimed, were filed, AID the vessel was dlscnatReu
from custody In December 1866 default for want OF an
answer was entered and the referred to com
missioner 1s default was opened by the Court Decem'
Der 81 1856 the claimants had leave TO file an answer
and filed one In March, 1882 the cause being Oh the
calendar was called in its order and the nDea rot a
ss This dsposon OF the case was made, it said,
because Of decision made by the supreme Court at
the December 1851. In the case OF the feOpieS leI
company against Beers 30 Howard, 3s3), ana OF
the rule adopted by the supreme, Court a' @ tie
~ maguire ag,inst Card (2l Howard. 2jD.
and because It thought that under the prncPe OI
thai rule taking away from District Courts the right or
proceeding m against domestic vessel for supplies
or repairs in virtue Of lien given therefor by satc
laws no recovery could be- had IN this suit Notwiih-
standing this decree noticed and put upon
the calendar by the claimants for the October term
sCO and the 9Th Of October sG0 the libel was again
dismissed with costs, the beant not appearing and
that effect was entered Tins proceedlng must
he regarded as waiver by the claimants OF he decree OF
March 1859 ON the 26h or January, ll an Ofder war
entered on motion OF inc ISihsn ia nnnt onG f thaf
than 10 days had elapsed since he ueciec' au nv
proceedings had Decn taken on the part ol
the bcants. and ordering that the suplaons eAecufu
on the part OF tho claimants DC cancelled rms OIder
entered a. an order OF cours ana without hot'G 20
the Jeant. No notice or copy OI the decree uSIssIIE
the libel and notice copy of the order OF Jan ~
s6I vas served on the lbcant's procors The Clerks
costs taxed Jan 26 1861 aud the taxed b was ned
the day. but the taxation was without pre-
on' % notice cost TO the was OeaR serTod 90 on m the an
proctor and he immediately on RECEIVING
requested the claimants proctor to open the default ana
Withdraw the bill OF coss and told, n reply that he
nj ght consider the bill of costs Withdrawn and INC de
fault opened In February lsGi the lcants proctor IN
orined the claimants proctor that the cause would be-
noticed the March Term. 1861 and each parry served
March Term 1904 The originals Of these notices now
produced 10 the Court; That s the Ole served by lhe
the one served by the bcauts proctor on Tie clhAt
proctor the Inter having upon IL an admission o service
so bug ON tie calendar fox the March Term 1864, was
called for trial, when t!e caimauts proctor s'e 10 Ihe
aee eu stood over and tIs motion noticed Tor the
attn OF March 1904 and hs been postponed by consent
n h claimed ON tic part Of the lbclant that under the
decision the Supreme Court In the case of the steamer
81 Lawrence Black. :-l, ths Court has Jurisdiction oi
this co s and that The hbcant ought 10 have an oPpor
tuuity 10 try the ease on its merits.
January s 49, m order ~ and without norle or
u motion for leave 10 cut'r but am oI opinion inAt
Aftsr he took decree In October lsCO dsnsng the
libel by default for want Of tht appearance OF Ie nen. M @
90 enter without notice an order o course cahceg the
stpuatons executed on the part OF the claimants sn'k
the libel and IL did not require any speca! hht oI the
Court OF the judge or any signature Of me JIIse 10 ,o
lj of this Court iu Admiralty where proceedings Oh de
not stayed by an appeal aud the decree Is hot
IS against whom rendered, an order that the succS
of such party cause the engagement oi their stipulation
10 be p,fiorird cor why execution should not
issue. order II course IN view OF i.' anl
~ the fact that when hbrl j. G,lHN'd th' N'I i"
dlticn and support of the rpulaOns H. gone 8hd t"ty
fan with the libel matter oi course, hclc s no reason
why an order can'chus ihc spu'lohs shouu uo' W. "n
order uf course.
Rut think that the claimant by his conduct followed
up by his noticing the for trail Tor the March Term
libel aud the order of January, l,G The only question
20 which have had any hesitation has been WAehGF
mont of The cause Ia affect the surces IN the stipu-
lat IONS so as cold them 20 their liability AFTER The ds
yucate c deere. lud tr order 90 hold the surcc7
sfl liable on their lpulaous For. unless that can De
Inss Tho pyt however s srtod by The decision OF thG
supreme Court u the os' or The Fanlr" O2 Nhcd'"u'
pe al and al crward ordered The 20 be- rrsatud u
was con',led that the Court lad no authority 90 rein
crate 10 the prejudice oi the stpulaors or surrucs To
whom tho vessel dcliycpd upon stipulation IN the
It's opinion. ovcrruled the objection ana SAID:
'Wheneycr stipulation is taken In aa
Admiralty suit for the property subjected lo ega pto,9
nud condemns tiOn The stipulation s deemed mere sub
Tor the thing itself and The spul4ios liable 10
Court which IL could properly exercise II the ihng lsi
were st N IT. custody TINS Is tho known course oil me
y
Court will In particular exercise us authority whec
,ur,tcs on the stipulation may be- affected niur!ousy.
That Is "A subject addressed 10 It's sound discretion
Every court must be presumed To exercise those
powers belonging A. winch necessary for the pro
motion OF public Justice, and do not doubt this Court
pC,.es,cs the power rCHState any cause dismissed ny
mistake The reinstatement Of the was founded,
IN the opinion Of this Court, upon the pain principles oi
Justice aud according 10 the known practice OI other
judicial tribunals In like cases"
Ts Court has therefore clearly The power TO relnstae
this case. IL dismissed on the idtu thht the supreme
Court had decided that this Court hnd ~ jurisdiction OF
such - case The hbelant CLAIMS that the supreme
Court has decided otherwise lie is entitled 10 try the
ease nd to MAINTAIN the jurisdiction OF thl, Court u ne
can aud he cannot try the unless 1t be relnhtated
Te n istake made by the librant In allowing the case To
the esc would have been in different position II the
claimant had waived, he dldi ne decree ana lho
order and but for such waiver the touri might nave Decll
cousaiucd 10 deny any relief to the belant Nor II IL
show n that the sufetcs VIII be Affected any more III
inrOu.ly than suTctics I'm any case who may pe com
rl 10 respond for their PRINCIPAL. The Coufl acts ON
ir matter rs N the vessel still In its custody The
result h that the case Il proper one Tor granting 10 INC
nbelaut the relief asked iOr,
Mr.. A. + smith for the lbclant Mr. W. r.. Beebe for
the claimant.
~ BANKRUPTCY.
Petitions in bankruptcy were filed and re-
fcrred as foows Petition Of Nathaniel H. Burr OF tins
city, referred Register Dayton and Of Pelethh wight
OF this city, referred to Register Allen.
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS OFFICE-Before
Commissioner osborn
ALLEGED OBTAINuENT OF WHISKY by MEANS
OF A FRAUDULENT BOND.