The national Republican., 1867-10-29

thu probabilities, were used inadveflenily Apply.
ing th.'. priasiple. 70 the oa.s a. b.r b. foGss 9
ground, situated In square SIS II also sppears thai
this lot was Intended 10 be dc up OF part. Of lots
lot .djoinins The property Of John ss.fSrd' Tss..
three poiats concur In desigbsisg specific portion
Of real estate, and the other words, "adJOning LOT
the lots and o. out of which The transferred ot was
carved. The 10 not without heuties but upon
the Prspon Of the weight Of proof and .uhor.
and II was therefore confirmed.
rHs PEARSON WILL CASE.
Barrett and wife vs. hePhsr.on. Thisi. an appeal
from the judg Of Judge Purcell published In
our court reports day or two since, refusing mo-
tion OF hr Cox, that two issuet-one n 10 the sanity
Of Mrs Pearson, and the other as to ihs undue In.
nuenes Of Mr.. and Mrs. Bsrret upon Mrs Pearson
be sent to the euprems Court for trial By Jury
Judge Purcell holding that his prev Gus revoeston
q probate q Mrs. Resr.on'. will and the appeal
pelia,e tribunal Tho former arp.sl from the juds.
pent setting aside tn. probate of Mrs fsarsons Will
hr. Coz, sppearinx for the appellants, s.ksd the
consideration Of the second appeal He thought that
to secure a revsrsion Of the Judgment below.
Mr Davidge argued that the appo,l from the
Judgment rescinding the order admitting Mrs Pear
sons will to probate, must be disposed Of hrst 10
point Of time; b.eau.s unless such appeal wa.
decided, the judgment Of the tury would be a dse
.on Of poluts that had not yet arisen in the legal
Mr. Cox in reply contsuded that at the point now
reached BY the case 10 the Orphsus Coat, the party
propouudiug the will had two m .thod. OF procssd.
Ing, as, or course, ous to settle the issu by q
p!enary proceeding In the Orphans Cnur the other
to deermiue the same by issues sent In the Circuit
GSS, to he tr'S by lay He read :suSry pro-
Mr.. Dsyidg, hoped that even u there we're two
appeals the court would hear both appeals together
remedy; for on appeal. the judgment could only bs
that the Judge Of tho Orphan, Court erred in re.
fusns to send up certificate Of issuesau tmpoteat
,ueh certificate be sent up is what The case n.eis He
inquired what authority sustaiued thq right to take
an spfesl from the refusal Of the Judge below to
Mr.. Cox said that 'ueh course was auth ,r'rsd by
Barral and Carroll va, Reading. Nd Rep 3Sj.
Judge Cartier said the court were disposed to
iesslsto little and try both appeals together, aad
It was so ordered.
CORPORATION CASE
No Il, (Distriet court Uoited states vs. Lot lO,te
@ Boyle owner This case come, up upon writ Of
err to the deeres Of eonaea,on entered BY the Dis.
tTet court
Brent and Merriof for sppelI.n. District Attorney
A motion to continue thu cause excited half an
hours discussion bat the Court left the open,
and took up the nert case.
ADIvoRcE CASE.
from judgment Of Mr.. Justice wJlIe giving the
Iialntia aiimony during her suit for divorce frOu
The plaintiff represents that she is the wife Of the
defendant, who she states has sbaudousd her. Tho
defendant sdmits marriage with the plaintiff, but
asserts that she Is not his TO- having been d.
yoreed from her By decree Of court Of competent
jurisdietion In Hsrou county, Ohio
Mr.. Swami moved to dism IS tie appeal upon the
ground that as this order Of alimony was lot nnAl,
AID did not affect the eris Of the main question, Il
was not appsa able.
Mr.. Rildie said that In passioy uppu tsls order,
the Court by law must have had the merits Of the
case In view for the order is founded nP1u the We
po,nt upon which the case turnsi-that Is the fact
"a W wRF m n w
Mr. Stsntou held that the grsnlin OF the order
aSsS med that th- plaintiff vast defendants WIFE,
and that was tho n eciso fact IA is.ue.
Justlce wylie called the attention Of the counsel
to the fact that ths alleged divorce was granted
wii.out sctual notice to Ars Joelyn, and while ste
was absent from Ohio, aud In a county where neither
p-rty resided. Are e.ori of oh divorce he wou d
never Teeog nizs primd Idcis csso Tho So preme
Court had dsei'ed that Were ths questioa turns
proof
Swami and W. J MI'er for pla!nuf. stant3n aud
Rddle for respondent
The Court 'ook the papers, AMI ats o'clock al
journ'd.
ORPHANS CoJRr-Judgs ParctH-The Or.
Saturday, and transacted the following business:
LAST WILLS AND TEsrAMESrs.
The last willis Of sallis l.. Mauoiug and John W.
reported, were hually proved by the remaining wit
hesss., aud fully admitted to probate.
LErTERs TEsrAAESrARI.
W. n Iuaiuou uiIP
Harvey, deceased, giving bond In $4,000 with NJ.
Adler and MEutee 4 Adler as sureties.
0rARDIAsr.
VIM. II. McDougall qualified as guardian Of
Charles Harry, giving bond In $40 O0O with NJ Adler
aud n J. Adler a, rurstics
INPOENArION.
In answer TO y question tho Court stated that the
estate OF every decetgGt liable to account for
all liabilities uutil at the period allowed BY law his
estate was settled. Ann tha. time all debts which
mi ght have been proven were considered IS buried.
At2lS o'clock the Court Adl lourosd until Tuesday.