The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-11-23
THIN COURTS.

TIID COURTS.
.-DrsTRIor SUPREME Uounr-Genrdi Term
All the justices sat m bdne on Saturday and
the following business was acted on:
ATToRrlrs ADMITTED.
:. On the motion Of John l.. Smith, Judge Will
Hap Alexander, OF the bar OF Baltimore, was
>{HE bRrioa OF PROMISE oAsE-sEw TRIAL
GRANTED.
Elizabeth Gresham w. Bertrsm Liens. This
sdacea IKE psn ss promise sas o msT
rfage, attracted much attention At Its rst trial,
and s eyer in sysrdiot OF 1900 for the
II comes up on thirteen exceptions to the
ruling OF Judge Fisher, but five or six OF
which were inslsted on IN the argument on
afew weeks since when the case was argued.
Judge 0lin pronounced the opinion Of the
Court ~ said that ~, there ere we're large
the fourth exception matter sufficient to In
duoe them to set aside the verdict below and
grant ,.n new trial He would therefore eo1nns
error assigned In the fourth bill Of exceptions,
In which the defendant sets forth the charge OF
shSs he uase a erred s 10 o. the ras Or
age. was that q the Jury believed that the de.
and Ss he, 81
they could add to all the other elements OF
damage which he had summed up In his charge
Now we think that going beyo nd tie law. The
doctrine Of smart money was an outrageous
one, .and should be stamped with disapprobs-
law. The doctrine Of "smart money! should
| only be applied to cases In which the offence
had been TO the public as well as to the indi:
lie, but the public and private cases ought not
| to be united, and the damages due the public
put into the pockets of the individual.
OF primitive damages could not be applied to
| q case arising on contract. The language of
court. Is merely ths, 10 these case. there q
wrong ' and 'SsH Ssaiass, and ind
.Ssn Sss :. Ssy TO
no further. This wa, his Judgment.
| Judge wylio said that IN regard to exem-
o ne the case sSSs so g.
Quisley, reported in 81 Howard, the Supreme
y d.%.se fn me Of .
aspersions Of the character OF Quigiey to be
sy asd sSe oo nap sspef cr
libel. Judge Grier, Of the Supreme Court OF
the United States, In remarkins on this case,
| ages could be given, and among them no
| named seduction. But as 10 this case no
| Judge wy concurred with his brother DIN.
/ was such as to entitle her to vindictive dam
ayes. The defendant had come Into court,
and In order to heighten her damages had pro-
| claimed her own shame when she could have
kept II secret. Under all the developments
| which had been made he must say that this
was nots case for "smart money" nor did he
| think "the ability OF tho defendant to respond
| IN damages" matter to be considered by the
Jury In liking the rate oil compensation to be
allowed; The mention Of It could only have
primitive damages, and as such was clearly
not proper subject to be pressed on tho at
Judge Fisher alluded humorously to the fact
were unable to agree among themselves. He
he had given to the Jury 10 this case. In tie
| matter OF smart money, he cared not what
might have been Its origin, It was an excel.
come out OF Nazaretbi and he was persuaded
| that II ever there was case to which the doc
trine was applicable 1t was to a case in which
| wards violated promise of marriage.
Judge Cartier said he agreed with the ma
iority Of his brethren. He thought that the
| damages before he got to "smart money"
He did not think this species Of damages could
I be received In an action or confraeiu. q
THE CONTESTED ELECTION CAsEs-YINIs.
Mr.. Riddle called the attention OF the court
to the contested election cases stili remaining
Judge Cartier: Mr.. Davidge, arc YOU ready
Mr.. Dayidge: am ready to announce to the
court that In view OF the recent decision Of the
| see no Other course thAn 10 call the
petitioner and to submit TO a non suit.
Judge Cartier; The petitions are dismissed.
This concludes the controversy as to the
validity Of the elections In the Fifth ward
The court then adjourned until Saturday
next.
court transacted the following business on
Saturday:
ROUTINE BUSINESS.
| judgment was confessed In the following
cases Peck & Bird VS., Jillardi s. W. Fair.
child & 90. VS.. ]. 7. Burchi @. W: Riggs d 90.
w. Richards 4 AS iI same vs. Huge, Boyer,
Began vs.. Israel S. Smith; i. II, and NJ. A.
Go vs.. Gideon LsrntH; Harvey 90. vs.. JnS.
cases; David Hamburger VS.. WIN. Prince; Da.
The following eases were disposed of, Berry
VS.. Hatton-judgmenti Samuel Openheimer
VS.. Henry J: Baker-ildgment; Q. W. Riggs
Thofnton-tsEen Oh The calendar weleh w.
Crowley Il Colcman--judgmont by defaulti
Dore s%. 4 vs.; Nixon IL. Hsll5!aasnsnt sOn
be taxed by the clerks stoneburner vs.. Marx
Miiier-judgnent BY default=stephens.
,uo,o Sefposs,iSn oa as w,,h,0s,o0
on the trial calendar.
Bis. va, Snow t G0yie 'Af TSls /. an action
|: for libel brought By Surveyor Bliss against
the publishers Of the Sunday Herald on ao-
count of an article In that paper. On motion
OF Mr.: Mussey II was ordered to be placed on
the trial calendar.
= THE DHEACH OF PROMISE CASE.
Gresham vs. Liens. Mr.. Bradley submit
ted motion for leave to amend the declara.
tion In this case, which was not acted on.
dstchell 4 90, vs.. Conner. Appeal from
! the judgment OF Justice involving some COM
plication Of mutual accounts, tho plaintiff
claiming $Qo+0.
Messrs. N. II. Miller and NJ. Thomson ex-
amined number OF witnesses, and the case
tin for a portion OF The amount claimed by
; him.
Adjourned.
ORPHANS CouRT-Judge PrecH.-This court
transacted the following business on Satur.
day;
LRTTRRs TEsTANENTARY.
VIM. A. Austin qualified as administrator Of
VIM: u, Maleom, giving bond In 10000, with
L. W. Jones and Peter BAumgraB as sure ties.
Annie M. Bemis qualified as administratrix
Of Isaac A. Bemis, giving bond In $500, with