Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-03-03
THE COURTS.

Aqne let cas-, " as u ken uI,, tsni q neral II
ii. Wells, tor tie defendant, rssnnied his re-
marks of yesterday. He sand that he would
show that they were bound by the terms of
tn, ir agree IN, ut to put and k ep the canal In
ri air, and on the 18th day OF May, 1866, VIII n
Z b. Y obtained the lease, the Aqueduct was in
poss, s. ion of the United States, and that they
had spent about 81 o O in repairing the canal
itself, without touching the Aqueduct bridse
He should show these and many other facts,
and then say to the jury that If the Aqueduct
does prevent docks, &c, from being built,
1T is mere private injury, and not
a public one, one which may perhaps
inconyt nieDce Mr.. Shosmaks and others, but
not the great public. And he contendgd further
t. ~ ii did not create a nuisance, whether it was
thing that paid or not. But as matter of
TACT, he Claimed that the Chesapeake and Ohio
canal was not a failure, but aimed 10 open a
great tide alter commu n ication (, ON the Ohio
riverto Lake Erie itself. Notwithstanding that
great work was completed at such an immense
outlay TO tue States OF Virginia and Maryla
1t was moi a failure. for during the last year
nearly half n million tons OF coal came over
tins canal, and paid into the treasury in one
day over three thousand dollars; and is not that
a gr alter object tnan merely obstructing the
channel OF the anci, mt town of Georgetowns
He claimed that Congress, the soSere ign power,
G. nd by enactment obstruet any place within
tn II baIbor, even if it does ext nc 10 the chain
bridge at the Little Falls The counsel for the
persecution said yesterday that nature design
ed the city of George own rs great port. Ma
lurp, then, accomplished its work very poorly,
for you will have 10 destroy the ports of Wash.
ing ton and Alexandria first for, in endeavor-
ing to aid nature, they had Constructed a great
SEA wall, which made a very poor channel
worse. and so INSTRUCTED it that now vessels of
only eleven feet dra ught can 60 TO Georgstown
Hon. Reverdy johnson followed. Tue pow
er 10 regulate commerce is exclusively in Con-
giess, and " hen Congress regulates il then the
pow er rests with no one else. Then it had the
power to pass those acts, and it can pass an act
10 make this aqueduct legal structure, as il
did in the case of the Wheeling bridge. IL can
n n nrn Qpr,fin NV
the United States to punish parties for build
ing or continuing the aQueduct, which they
mad power granted them to do Then the coun-
sci concedes II the power given by the act of
lS3J has not been violated, nothing has been IL
lega and they will have to show that something
has been done outside the authority granted.
Now, II the Company had a right to do this act.
build this aqueduct, by their charter, then it
cannot be a crime. The act of 1919 speaks of
TINS aqueduct as thing already done by act of
lsao, and protects It by penal LEGISLATION. That
shows conclusiyely that Congress supposed it
was done and rightly done, and more than that,
by the act of 1897, they appropriated $4,000
TO complete the work Looking at all
these acts, this aquednct is authorized by
law. and being SO authorized cannot be a
nuisance. Then, upon what grounds can you
remove this structure. The interests of George-
town perhaps. But the citizens of other cities,
of Washington. Alexandria, and the nation
generally are TO be looked at. Are all these
interests TO be III any way impaired TO advance
the mere local interest of GEORGETOWN Con.
unlimit6 trade of the great West was to find
Its W ay TO the ocean by means of a continuous
canal communication.
THE CASE OF COL. 7. c. BAKER
EQUITY COURT, Justice Olin = Yesterday
efter our report closed. the case OF l.. c. Baker
VS.. Corporation of Washington-W j. Miller
and Wilson; came up This is an action brought
70 recover the reward offered by the CITY of
ashlngtoE for the arrest of the assassins of the
President, and for a division of the reward
s20,Gc. The Justice holding this Court said ne
was doubtful OF his jurisdiction over this case
as there was an ad6 quate remedy by an action
at law, but II appearing that 1t was by consent
of parties. the hearing of the case was POSTPONED
until the 10Th instant.
Eivira Il. Hailenhack VS.. &. J. Hallenback:
OF der of publication against absent defendants
Ivan Hughes W. Nicholson: order extending
time to answer until 5th inst granted.
The death of Thos. I'll. Ford, ESD. was an.
nounced and the Court adjournad.
7o-6dy.-Martin VS.. Richards; order appoint
!ug March 7th, ls6s. for hearing application for
iBlnn ction. ..
N. +. Young VS.. Julia A Young: order pro
conf, $50, and reference to the examiner to take
testimony.
WESTERN MAIL CONTRACT.
The case of John Altman VS.. G. CT. Huntley
ct al was heard. The bill of complaint in this
case sets forth that the defendant obtained a
contract in the Post Office Department, in
nary, Is61, for carrying the mails on route
tory, to Waiula, Montana Territory;
that soon after he entered into copartner-
chip with Altman, assigning him one half of
The contract. and AS partners they pro-
yided for carrying the mails and pas
SINGERS over the route in stage coaches.
hat before they entert d on the performance of
The contract the respondent subiet, without the
knowledge of complainant, the contract to
Witchl'r and Clark for $1,000, (the original
amount was S23.O6e per aLnum for three years,
but II has since been increased TO S6j,005) The
complainant alleges that be proceeded to San |
Francisco soon after entering into copartuer-
ship with the respondent to Pre- cure materia
TO stock the western end of the route, and ex-
pended over $1,000 in gold, and there learned 1
after he bad shipped portion Of the material
that Huntley had sublet the contract, aud re-
fused 10 acknowledge him as q partner in the
contract. The bill prays that the defendant
shall account for the profits derived from SUD-
letting the contract that defendant be eploined
from collecting or attempting to collect monies
due them. and that Il receiver be appointed to
collect said monies and hold the same subject
TO the order of the court. Huntley, in his ans
wer, alleges that the contract with Altman was
not one OF copartnership but an agreement to
enter into contract; that the said agreement
was obtained by false representations, and
denies the exuity of complanant's bill
Inc case nrst came up about month since
before Judge WyIie, and on motion of com
plainants counsel for injun ction, and the ap-
pointment OF a receiver, a decree was made and
g. w. Riggs appointed receiver. These proceed-
ings Were had before the respondent ans wered
and subsequently the defendant filed his an
swer. ard his counsel moved that the iniunc-
ton be dissolved, filing at the same time sew
eral affidavits The case was thereupon re-
opened, and the complainant took testimony
before NJ Ashford, examiner, and subsequently
moved a bill, answer, and proofs for an in
junction and receiver, as prayed about ten
days since, and the Court took he papers The
Court his morning made decree as PRAYED,
appointing Mr.. Riggs as receiver L. g. Hine
and X. I. Merrick for Ailmon Chapman, Hos
mer Il Co. for Huntiey. -.
The testimony taken was to the effect that
the respondent knew Of Allmon having gone
10 San Francisco to purchase material, and
also that an attempt had been made to brlba
the party who drew the original agreement.
A witness named Hinton testified before Mr.
Ashford that he saw the respondent nav the
money, and he was arrested for perjury but
second witness corrobor ated his
evidence
CIRCUIT COURT, Justice U,ygie.-Alex. HAY,
VS.. James $. French: Judgment
afterwards confessed; on motion of Mr. Brad
ley, Jr., it was stricken out. McCiowan's ad-
VS.. Miller, executor of Hammack
ReZin Forrest ct al VS.. George A. w Randall;
Jackson. G. Fuller VS.. VIM. b. Lewis: coz
tinued. Palmer VS.. Edward G.. Queen; luog-
me Mt confessed. John 4. Ennis VS.. David S
Gcoding: settled of.
Schneider and Schneider vs. Nailor. 1t an
pears that the plaintiffs in this case had con-
tracted with defendant to furnish certain iron
mouldings, and not being done according to
contract, defendant refuses to pay. Verdict for
plaintiff in $3.50, with interest from 9th Feb
ruary 1866. tr..- g.
Hickman VS.. Edwards. Davis and Coz
Bradley, ir. This is an ejectment case brought
against defendant, Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards as
tenant of certain house on q street, OF which
she CLAIMS to be the owner, and not tenant to
nybody. The Court instructed the jury to
find for the plaintiff on the first count, that is
TO three. fourths of the undivided whole.
Dnvf svv<l< A.<o