The national Republican., 1867-09-06
TIE CnyTUTS.

lne Vhso VI tue RUE uIOn Alex, ttlee to snow
| cause why he should not bo compelled to pay
over to Messrs. Jones and others, commits is.ionors,
81, 800, purehase.mOney Of certain lands in
| Georgetown belonging to the estate Of Leonard
Makel, and sold undor decree Of the court. A
rule Of similar character had also been made
upon W. D. Balsom and Jas. Dowling
Mr.. Jackson argued that as the title was
| clou1ed by a mortgage made In 1921, and per.
| feet title had been guaranteed, payment could
| not be asked until the cloud was removed.
The Court said the objection raised is based
entirely upon decd made in lS2l-47 years ago.
The Court considered this q deed Of trust, made
TO secure the grantee for his liabilities rs indorser
Of certain notes, and contained no covenants to
pay any debt A deed of trust without such
covenants does not prevent the full operation Of
the statute of limitations. Now all these notes
are barred by Limitation Of time and a,e in law
presumed to have been paid. Those transactions
are buried under the accumulation Of forty. four
years. The land has, In tho meantime, been re-
conveyed to tho parties whose interest Is sold by
the commissioners. Mr.. Giles purchased II, and
now seeks to answer a rule to make him pay by
saying there is cloud on the title. A cloud
must have something more in Il than wind.
Equity looks at tho substance Of things, but
will net allow fanciful notions TO interfere with
Justice. The court made tho rule absolute, and
decree was mado directing Alex. GileT, Wm.
D. Balsom and Jos. Bowling to comply with the
terms Of salo in this case on or before the lst Of
October next.
The Court announced that he had been as.
signed to hold the Equity Court at each monthly
term until February next, inclusive. lie was
not going to come here ovory morning and, II
no case was ready, adjourn from day to day
but would 60 through with the calendar and
then adjourn the court until the next month.
The case Of Cowen, for tho State Of Ohio vs.
J. G. Wetmore, was taken up upon motion by
IL GaI UARlr Ear
against the defendant, compelling him to turn
over to Adjt. Gen. Cowsn the papers Of tho Ohio
State agency at Washington.
Mr.. WetmOre's statements Of tho case are the
same as embodied in the various arguments on
his side heretofore published in this journal.
Col. Hcnkle appeared for Gen Cowen and Mr..
Muzzy for Mr.. Wetmorc, tho latter Of whom
made short argument against the mandamus
The court gave an oral opinion substantially
as follows:
Under other crcumstances I would have
thought 1t due to have considered this case at
my leisure and to have given n written opinion,
but as prompt action secms to bo asked for, and
my mind Is clear upon the subject, will decide
now. This is an application on the part Of the
State Of Ohio for mandlmus to Wetmoro. A
good deal has been said as to who shall be the
party in whose name the writ should issue. Tho
writ has not yet Issued md If the writ did issue
| 1t would bo writ Of mandamus 10 the name Of
| tho United States. We have not arrived at the
point in the case where the proper parties are to
be considered. It is now immaterial who the
parties are. The substance Of the case 10 that
Mr.. Wetmorc was nnmod by the Governor Of
| Ohio an agent at Washington for the soldiers
This agent had to give bord, and was furnished
with an Office stationary, &c lie discharged
the duties faithfully for many months, but Of
late resigned the position Now the State Of
Ohio asks maudamus to compel Mr.. W. to turn
over the papers Of the agency to his successor,
| on the ground that all tho papers OF the soldiers
should be delivered up to the State. If the
agency was q public Office, the demand would be
proper. But do not take that view Of IT, The
business ut the agency was the business Of each
separate soldier the agent was the agent of each
soldier, liable to him, and not the State. A
soldier might have employed another agent.
The only liability which the agent was under
| to the State of Ohio, was to faithfully disburse
the State money given him for Office expenses.
Mr.. Wetmore answers that. notwithstanding he
has resigned his office as State agent he still IT,
| as be was before, the private agent Of many SOL
ders who prefer to still employ him rather than
the new State agent. The business Of the sol.
diers may go TO the new agent or not, as the SOL
diers determine. This is the test of the business,
and shows it to have been private business be
tween tho agent and the soldier. The Ieremptory
mandamus Is refused
, BY this decision, NJ. Weimoro retains posses
sion and control Of all the books, pHrerS, etc
of his late Office.
In the case of the admission Of n gentleman tC
| practice at the bar of this court tho court re.
| voked its order of admission on the ground that
| tho court, in making such admission had ex.
| ceeded its authority, as to the court in general
term alone pertained the right to admit prac-
titiouerJ to the bar Of the court.
The Court took up cases, as follows
2l2 Brown vs. Beckett A bill to subject the
Loo NJ nf Claimant napkaI NnlnraI IN in
| Georgetown, to the payment Of certain debts.
The answer Of Mary Beckett, his wife, alleges that
sho is tho real owner of tho property sought to
| ho subjected. The care was continued with leave
to take testimony. jackson Ond Mathews.
9Ol. Charles Ball and others vs.. Henry
Lichau. This Is q creditors bill that Is filed by
the creditors Of Lchnu to obtain an order Of
court for the sale Of certain estate belonging to
him, and the payment Of their debts out Of the
proceeds. The Court ordered decree for the
sale Of tho Liohau Hotel on Louisiana avenue,
and the distribution cf tho proceeds among
LichHus creditors whatever remains over to be
paid to Lichnu.
Mr.. N. J. Miller called the attention of the
court to the case Of Baker vs, The Corporation
of Washington an action to recover $40, 900 10.
ward offered for the arrest Of the assRssins of the
President Mr.. NJ, thought that the time for
taking depositors had expired The Court said
1t would consider tho matter and gave his doci.
sion thlH morning.
No. SO This is an action for divorce on the
ground Of the impotcncy OF body on the part of
the wife preventing tho contamination of the
marriage The court said, very properly, he did
not wish to have the evidence read in court TO
would take tho evidence and read 1t at leisure.
Mr.. johnson also submitted his arguments in
writing, and tho court reserved its decision.
SO, White & Joyce james Johnson ct oil
This is a creditors bill asking the court to au.
thorize tho sale of certain real estate belonging
to the defendant, aud the use Of the proceeds
thereof to pay debts dRo hC plaintiffs and other
creditors.
The following fornA! riers wero entered
1887. Gene vs. CrN oder to call defendants
to answer by notice Ia rgW.FIpers.
500. Wagner vs.. Nanck law casel Leave
granted plaintiff to am,ul declaration.
3saj. law Towu.cnd " shelton, Rule Is.
sued to show cause Why unreal ,hall not be al.
lowed.
1882 schnider ". jones. Order of pubIica.
tion.
IIcop vs., Heap e. al ST. Of real estate un.
der decree of court Gr. " o'' irmcd.
1892 owen " NcLirs, n ct al J. j. John
son named as guarIuni defend the interests Of
infants in this suit
Tho court then aJionruci until this morning
at ten o'clock
TuGUSUAr,