The national Republican., 1867-11-25
THE COURTS.

OoONhbs
SUPREME CotHr o. rnr DIsrRIcr or CoLuH.
siI-osssHAL r. an Ica..I Jnsttcs Cartier and yus.
| ffcss Wyi6 and 0iin sat IN banc on Saturday for
the purpose Of pronouucing the judgnent Of the
sdvi,emspI Judgments were given In the following
| cases;
Chief Justice pronounced the judgment oi the court
He said the case came up upon exceptions to eertan
which he quoted. Such in.trueiiOn. were, in sub.
stance that the plaintiff fell Into pit In Fifteenth
street because Of his own negligence and In spite Of
certain precautions taken by the authorities TO make
such pit safe he could not recover; but u the want
df proper precautions at the spot led to the accident
| the plsnuf was entitled to damages. Under those
instruction the case was submitted to the Jury, and
ssy found for q, p.p'ss syns ,S II %
f-r.d pit to be dug they should be responsible for
putting the highway In condition Of safety as II
was At hrst. This the court thought self ;eydelt.
Highways were made to be travelled over d.ilt and
nighty and to hold that the authorities In charge Of
this highway could dig pit and pitch the ps'ssr.by
make pitfalls for travellers to hid Otherwise would
| not be common sense They might Just as well
erect galows on Fouttecpth street sad hang every
deep hole dangerous to life The Chicago ease cited
argument proved that cities were n such cases held
70 the utmost possible pIecaution." Never In the
life Of the Chief Justice had he been certain he
was right as In this case,asd he was sustained by
his bIethIen Tie judgment below was affirmed.
Judgs Wiley said that the rule that no damages
shoud be given In cases Of ipjuries when both par
ties were at fault applied 10 collisions At ,ea and
upon nayigsbls rivers In eases ike this 1t was dif
fsrent. Cities In which so many drunken men lived,
were bound so to protect excavations that even =
drunkeu -,an would not fall In.
Judge DIN asf,st with the general opiuion, bot
not for the reaions given W Judge Wiley. He
thought that this court held that the party seekipg
10 recover must be without fault the rue which
applied TO collisions on railroads and elGewhef He
Understood the charge below In this sense, and so
Notice Of an appeal to the Supreme Court Of the
United States was given In this ease.
| Pierce vs.. Cox. Tbs chief Justice delivered the
| opinion OF the court 10 subsistence o. follows:
Mrs Pierce brings bill against Mr. Csx to com.
W U S fouUS % z SsI that
Young's lifetime he, in administering on his own
estate gave to Mrs. Pierc, house and lot in Bsltl
| more, and thereby had adesmed or taken away the
legacy. The court had passed upon the Issue thus
made The case cha 'ged Its form In the upper court
below 1t was contested on the ground Of ademption
| In fact; above II was contested on ths ground OF
| ademption In law and equity. Reasoning rom the
Intention OF the testAior, the court had to the
conclusion that in purchasing tho house in Baltimore
the testator executed his will and adesmed the be-
quest And the court was very strongly ineliued to
execute the testator will he had himself executed
IT, There would be NO embarrassmsut II this was
what is Technically called demonstrative legacy,
but II is eharged that II Ia a specific legacy,
which could not be taken away according to the
opinions Of long line OF 10 d. spiritual aud TEN
poral, Lord Thurlow being the last who perpetfated
| such an opinion.
The court did not think these opinions had any
1 IN
equity. Was there any difference between a gene.
raj or specific legacy In principle, except the di
Guilty 10 determining when the legacy was sdsemcd
"A mere question Of evidence, Chancellor Kent
thought the whole question was one Of retention,
and this court thought too and here the esaior
had as this case, carried out his own latent even
a specific legacy wouid he adaemsd. The bill must
be dismissed for want Of equity
Judge Wiley thought that this was a general, not
specific Legacy, the fuud cut OF which It wa, paid
only be ng poi1tsd out
me0han vs. Chophans. Judge olIn said that the
court had ecme to the conclusion to tend the case
back for a rev trial In tho court below. Il was an
action for libel 10 which the court bslow had decided
that tho seretiry Of War not obliged to produce
10 court the paper alleged to bs lbslous he thou ht
dueed III, deposition Of Nj Dams in which the
substanc' Of the libeous pspst was act forth, and
such paper being admitted In evidence, the Jury
found for the plaintiff This court thought the deci
s'on bebw erroneous, AID overulsd It.
Byrp' vs.. Davis Judge oliu pronounced the
court sopinion; The court in this case had come to
the co,elusion that he plaintiff should recover tho
amount OF u'ur ous intere" which had been paid by
him.
II mere had been sny usury IN the original trans.
actoa 1t was cured by the judg gmsnt against Eyrne,
he having had an opportunity to plead 1t, and he
neglected to do So Bat as 4 appeared. eighteen per
due on that Judgment, this amount was proper to be
repaid to Byrne, and to ascertain that amount u
ne counsel could not agree upon 1t. reference for
hat purpose would be made TO an auditor An Ap-
| entered.
| bhrfsW anu VIE VS. hcpheTsOn ct al. Judge
wyle read the opuiOn OF the Corr, In which, after
reeitpg the tircumstsnees of the case, already fam
cur readers by reason Of their freqnent publ.
Purcell had jurisdiction to rot aside the probate Of
said will, and that tuch probate. being improperly
granted, was Justly set aside. This spPoal was
The second appeal from the deei.ion Of Judge Pur.
coll refusing to allow IA issue to the jury as to tbe
| fact OF Mrs Feauon's competency to make will,
ths ground that tho whole had gcae upon the
| hr't appeal, was then considered.
| The Court held that this decision must be over
| rulsd on the grouud that the Orphans Cou't was
bOuUd to act cousi,enty upon It's own theory OF The
law, snd not refuse party remedy because the
Supreme Court might decide that the Orphans Court
| Rad erred
The Court directed that tho Orphans Court ,ead
the Issues to the CIrciit Court, asked for, and
durlps the pendeney Of the sui, 'hSuld take inca
sureS protect the operty.
DEFERRED cAsHs.
The cases Of Homiller VS. The Mayor ot George
town, arab Bdelin's will, Joclyn VS. Joclyn, were
| urday
| ouRtou VS. Mock. Case set down fJI Argument a.
| the next term ofthe coutt.
ThE RrLB ON BAKIK.
o. s. Baker, esq made return to til, 'ule laid on
him at the last session OF the court In the matter Of
Ger ain moneys alleged by ia IL Spencer to be Dc
tahed from her Mr. Baker avers hat he had such
nancy In pledge, to abide the eySut Of the suit and
prayed ference TO an auditor to aserra how much
was due Mrs Spcn cr.
| Jadgs Wiley thought the return tno general.
1t was finally ordered that Auditor Cox report the
amount due, and report next Saturday, Judge Cart
| ter saying that II Mrs Spencer shouli 10 the mean
while suffer for want Of money wrongly detained by
Mr.. Baker, he would be held TO strict account by
| tha cOnTt
MRttingly VS.. Eys Notice Of An appeal to the SUI
| prsme Court given by Mr.. Cox.
| ATTORNEY ADMITTED.
| Oh motion, James T. Power, Of the euprsmO Court
Of Pennsylvania was admitted rs at Orncy In this
| court
| The court then adjourned until Saturday Iext
|