New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-12-23
Law INTELLIGENCE.
THE CIVIL COURTS.

On Friday and Saturday libels were fled i'll
Che United states District Court against the steamers
baltimore, Nebraska aud britannia OF European lines Ion
alleged violations n the Passenger act IN thc improper
construction OF berths
In the Supreme Court, in Brooklyn, on Satur-
ddy Annie Worcester sued Dodd's Express 10 recover
slo'' for trunk ar IthoA. aud contents 'el9hsIs 10
ANA lost by the defendants about the 1T 81 iaSi inc
She .siiicd that the box contained jewey IN addition
10 weaIueapparl The defendants showed
containing exemption from liability in loss OF Je"tlg'
and testiicd that they mad exercised Ordinary care
Judge Ohoit remarked thai the case inN9lNtd ~
and yrxcd questions az law and that ne should refuse te
nOnsi on this trial and let the ease bc more tabOlattB
reviewed az the General Term The case tneh W ~
5ur, who rendered q verde; for the plaintiff Tor inc
amount cluinrd; asay Of thirty days belhs G'eu "
make case OF appeal .
In the United States District Court, motion
Vas made before Judge Blaichford 90 bond the dsciy
az the loot Of Foyhftst The property OF III a. i6at
sie and j. J. Eckc names mot unknown IL Is SAN
IaS iSDnaet - Oe VI ~ , so S6 per week is strong
evidence Of that fact. The Onceis on inc sI iioct
day Nov g. broke INTO the estaOshmSlt q. "a s r',n
and finding the dscry running. aud faciltlcs Tor %
ing the products nrs adjoining rccthyns S S,aiSs
souer Harlan has since. the aihdavlts on Wv INT
explaining the suspicious circumstance uSld tarh
meters and counsel Saturday, made ,h0llO ~ tho
effect The motion denied; put WIN 4ca'o " NV
owners 60 renew on additional aihdaNl''
In the United States Supreme Court the ease
OF James L. Mumford. plaintiff IN error ag ~ - Ct
dell hos been concluded This case comes irout tne @
Court Of the Northern District OF CalIoria IVl -
dict in action OF eieetmel lnSolNlng it ~ ~ Iot
Ran Francisco. In 1Sf7 Gen kedruey gral'H tis i''
amou other property san Francisco, on the ppNlso
fhat should divided into lets and s0ld al eueVSn
after three months notice. the proceeds 10 go t" c
beDeat OF the town Dec 10 1870, the Acalde OF san
Francisco sold the lot to one OBren ana SAeeu.ou 70
him r decd OF conveyance. Afterward the Legislature
o the STATE OF California made grant or the property
ucludiug the lot in question. TO san Francisco euDSe
0ucutly the lot was sold Scale on execution ny
lie Sbfrf aud was again sold by Scale TO the pallllH
The Court below sustained the title OF the grantees Oh he
AIcalc and the plaintiff in error appeals 10 TINS Court
Cntcndiug that there no confirmation OF the sile
made to O'sic, and that II Is therefore VOID Inc ue
fdapt in error urges that the lands III question belonged
10 the United States by virtue Of sovereignty, IN March,
1sl; that Kcarney had power 10 make conveyance,
and that his attempt to do wholly Intellectual IL
Ne moi i'm the power Of the President or OF any under @
10 dispose of the public domain, unless IN execution Oi an
~, pr,ss power bestowed by law, and this must 90
derived either from the trcaymakng power or nom an
act OF Congress California succeeded To the Chiteu
States sovereign proprietor OF al lands stndle VeoW
bigh-yvuter mark and within It's borders Inc otatS
granted lands to the Defendants grant0r or cehneG
ihr grant To him for 90 years, and san Francisco never
had any such interest in them as could be sou upon eA
cntor or made liable to judicial sale upon Judgment
AGAIN her