The New York herald., 1868-06-12
NEW YORK CITY.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
The Peruvian-ChiIean Bond Case.
Before Judge Nelson.

Before Judge Nelson.
John Graham Us. antonio Afllan.-This rather I'M
portant and interesting case came up before Judge
Nelson on motion TO discharge the defendant from
arrest 1t will be remembered that the controversy,
OF which this suit is but phase, involves the title
to 100000 OF Peruvian and Chilean gold bearing
bonds which MILAN alleges Graham had OBJ
tanned from him by fraudulent representations
some time in April last. MILAN had Graham
100000 Since then Graham commenced several
retaliatory suits against MILAN in the State
courts on various allegations of fraud but in every
instance these have been discharged. Judge Blatch-
ford, in the United States District Court, rendered
decision in one branch of the controversy few days
since, in which he disagreed with the various deci
sons of the State courts, but Judge Nelson to whom
an appeal was taken, rendered his decision virtually
the decisions of the State courts reversing
the decision OF Judge Blatchford and discharging
MILAN 1Iom arrest.
Holidays Overland Stage Line Case-De-
cisiOn.
Thomas W. Keanard Benjamin Holiday
Judge Nelson delivered an opinion in this old ti-
gated case. The plainif deposited with the United
States Express Company in this city, a package
OF $4,000, addressed TO c. E. f. Blakesley, Gen.
tral City, Col, and took receipt for the
same to be delivered at nearest point OF destna-
tion reached Dy the company only which was
Atentson ,oda kansas where line OF stages commonly
10 be carried thence to its place of destination The
stage while ON its route was attacked by the Indians
on the 1th OF January, 1865 at Juesburg stage STA
tion where there was military post and plundered
including the package Of $4,000 We have no doubt
the suit Is properly brought against the defendant
AZ owner Of the line OF stages from Atchison, Kan.
sas, as the contract Of the United States Express
packageto the Defendants line and they were no
longer responsible according to its terms. On the
receipt Of the package by the defendants lne con-
tract was implied on behalf OF lis owner the pianiir
70 carry 1t TO its place Of delivery. We do not con.
celve In the case the terms or conditions upon
which the defendant engaged to carry express mat
TER on his line; but the held that the carrier
was not responsible for loss damages by the pub
lie enemy and that the Indians were to be regarded
as such put the to the jury upon the question
Whetner the express agent who has special charge of
Lne express matter and accompanied 1t had exer-
OF IT Immediately before and at the time OF the at
tack by the party Of Indians upon the stage. There
was mucn evidence tending 10 show that he had not
obeyed the instructions or advice given him by the
commander OF the military post at Julesburg in ad-
and that II he had the property might have been
placed in situation where It would have been safe,
and even would have been within the protection OF
the post The jury found verdict for the plaintiff
and we are not inclined to disturb 1t.
New trial denied
Towase Case on Appeal.
Ed,cdrd Robinson ct al. u.s. The Steaqetig Willfont
H. Weoo ct al, C7aiants.-The libel was filed in this
case against the steamtug Webb for breach of con-
tract of towage having engaged to tow the steam
ship Shooting Star from Portsmouth, N. H.. around
to the port Of New York. The steamship was
stranded on Tuckernuck Shoals, in the Vineyard
SOund, ABOUT three O'Clock on the morning of the
I'D OF March, 1885, by tile tug her passage New
YORK, In consequence Of the pilot having mistaken
his true course and the lights which were on the
T0ute The deviation was too great be attributable
70 accident or the prevalence OF fog which existed
~ the time OF the disaster. A sklful and atten-
i've pilot would have discovered the error before
occurred, or II the weather was such as might
nave led to ity the vessels should have come to an
chor and an examination made, so that their true
position could have been ascertained The main
ground relied on to exonerate the tug from RESPONSE
Dlnty s that the coasting pilot who had charge OF
the navigation was employed and paid by the own
ers OF the Shooting Star, and hence they were re-
ep0nslDle Tor the negligence want OF Skill that led
70 the disaster and not the owners of the tuu. We
agree, however with the court below that this posi-
ZION Is not supported by the proofs. The contract
was IN writing, and the master OF the tug thereby
stipulated ''tO tow the ship from Portsmouth to New
IOpk and furnish coast pilot for $625, and also fur
nisn my this) own hawser free Of charge, to be at
portsmouth to proceed on Monday.v This was under
date OF March 49, 1859. Nor we satisfied on the
proofs that the master OF the tug had authority to
employ the coast pilot, which was made a point in
she defence. Wethink the decree below must be af-
0rmed
There ia also cross suit brought by the owners Of
the tug to recover for the services rendered and
oiered TO be rendered after the Shooting Star was
got on the shoals andtemporariy repaired; and also
Tor the value OF the tugs hawser which had been
used IN relieving the ship. decree was rendered
for the hbeants for the sum Of 1855 95 There may
De some question as 10 the allowance for the services
rendered, but we are not inclined to disturb the
decree as entered. Decree below affirmed.