The New York herald., 1867-02-19
THE COURTS

Ipteresting Co Sporting Men and Lawyers.
WAsHnGroS Feb. 1s 1861.
kscxoe 11ospsos g 1Aomas y Bocie. The defendant
In this case " Thomas r. Bowie late member Of Con.
gfess from Maryland Tho suit on three promssory
notes for 81 900 EACH an the defence was thai they
were given for o gaming consideration Unable 10
establish this defence BY direct evidence the court
below rhe Supreme Court Of the District OF Coium-
bia) permitted proof 70 show that tho payee Of
the notes was ono Steer . notorious gambler,
who on the date in question January !, 1851 kept
gaming house in Washington and that tho defendant
was always inclined to gamble when under the influence
OF liquor and was grossly intoxicated the night Of
the last day Of the old year aud the morning Of New
Years day. 1857. The verdict for tho defendant,
and the case was brought here on appeal Mr. Justice
vS nOm hsow Sodna that to allow such seence 70
be proven by showing that tho defendant inclined 70
gamble when intox,cated, and that he was drunk
would overturn all the established rules OF
evidence. Supposing say the Court he claimed that
when drunk and II is proven that he was drunk on
certain date will therefore be thought established that
he then stole horsei On this poiut alone, wlthooi
proceeding consider the various other questions raised,
the Judgment was reversed.
Mr. Justice Grier read dissenting opinion in which
he took the view that the defence substantially that
the notes were obtained from the defendant by fraud
while he was intoxicated; and the defence being fraud
and not specifically that Of gaming consideration,
crcumsantai evidence was admissible to prove the al
legation
Prize Instance.
The United States %. c. A. Weed and r. BtydenburJh
Claimants 6crhese were claims for certain sugar aud
moasses captured In April 1864 and when restored
to the claimants by decree that the claimants trad
Ing under certain Treasury permits issued by special
agents OF that department, and no enemy
ownership being shown, the property captured
was on board the government transport A.
G. Brown, boat under the direction Of the Quarter
master's Department, In the vicinity OF New Orleans
where the trade conducted, and which hired or
that department for the purpose OF such transportation.
II objected In the that 1t should have been
the side OF the Court and that II there any
liability at all 70 forfeiture was for violation Of au
thority under Treasury regulations and not in prize.
The cause was appealed by the government, and the
Court now hold, Mr. Justice Miller delivering tho opinion
first, that where . has been prosecuted as prize
while the facts show that it is not prIze but OF
forfeiture under statute this Court will remand il for
further proceeding In the court below secondly,
that where case has boon In like manner prosecuted
in the instance court which, the facts presented,
this Court takes 20 10 case for prize court, II
will be remanded for proceedings in prize This Is not
for price, but Of forfeiture under statute for viola
ton OF their permits by the claimants but there s no
TO believe that case OF forfeiture would DO
made the testimony another Trial, as most OF
the er paste testimony taken by the captors would
probably be modified favorably to the claimants on
The decree of the District Court 70
nCir