New-York tribune., 1868-03-26
THE COURTS.
-

/
The case of Hatch agt. the Chicago, Rock
BLAND Pacific Railroad, and another which had been
removed 70 the United States Circuit Court, from the
state Courts and which motion to remand has been
argued the Court reseryng It's decision thereon and In
winch adavits and various papers have been read In
support OF motion dissolve the injunction granted
in the state Courts, argument commenced by coun-
for defendants to have such injunction dissolved
Counsel argued great length in support OF the right OF
the Directors issue the stock the issue OF which
is COM ylained OF by plaintiff. He said the osensible
| ground OF complaint was not the real ground.
| and that plaintiffs counsel had endeayored ~
raise issues foreign to the real issues. He de.
| Tended the right OF the Directors to Issue
the new stock Of the consolidated companies,on tho
ground that such issue was greatly Tor the dement, OF
prosperous condition under the management Of these D
rectOrs, Notwithstanding ii was hampered IN us opera
RMS In The various suits against the Directors He said
that ia view all the facts in the case, the complaint
segipT injury to the road by the Directors It appa
dnterested party eognizant OF the facts
that. il plaintiffs succeeded the Stockholders would Dc
the injured parties the real benefit OF panuds aes aa
having the interest OF the road at heart;
to the true interests Of the road He said that the az
to examine the Directors Of the road previous 70
issue being joined was irregular and was " hshing~
scheme and the Directors by the advice OF counsel were
right aud did not prejudice their case by not submitting
He said the right examine defendants in preliminary
become
become scandal that the idea Of suddenly and without
warning. summonng "A man 20 appear before referee
insanity, all his books and papers including even his
private correspondence, mOnstrOus one, and eoun
utermost The right OF such examinations restricted
70 much narrower limits in England, and such proceed
10 the parties and the proceedings being conducted with
"a decorum TO which we were fast becoming strangers
Further argument was adjourned until this morning.
when counsel for plaintiff Will reply.
TIE SHERRY WINE CAsE-THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Yesterday, the Sherry Wine case was con-
cluded Judge Blatchford charged the Jury, oomPs
menng them for their attention TO the case, and advert
ing to the Importance OF its The involved about
but the principle TO be decided involved larger
amounts The invoices alleged by the Government 10 be
fraudulent by Of the claimants stating
the full market value OF the wine The statutes OF 1889
mented upon 1t is admitted that it was the duty Of
claimants invoice their wines at their actual market
the price which the owner OF merchandise values his
goods aud is willing TO receive for them The
TO the market value and asserts that il hss
shown by each line of evidence that claimants valued
in their invoices at about IS per cent less than
their market value THE Court after asking the jury TO
with him. read nine requests from the Governments
charge various points and also 81 requests on tho
part OF claimants 10 charge on points raised by claim
ants The gross price 81 lO per quarter cask must be
found by you TO be price paid IN spain, or you cannot
take into consideration IL there Is no market value IN
Cadz we have 10 come back to the actual to claim
ants with profit added, to find the proper value TO
be placed in the invoices II there was intent 10
Grade by claimants by their mode Of doing
business, It is just much AN odense under the Law
intent to defroud the revenue, and would ren.
der the wine liable TO confseation The finding. by
Custom House officials re appraisement Of either
higher or lower value does not bud the GovSInment 10
such reapprasement the invoice value Is declared cor
rect IL VIII NOT stop te Goieri&nt & % aO S tS @
porter. The policy OF the Government IN employing iu
formers and giving them share OF the proceeds 9 CON
in relation TO the revenue. and is lust and proper
policy arising out OF the necessity OF securing the Just
amount OF revenue ana protecting honest exporters ,t
the sequences OF the frauds OF dishonest ones ana
policy NOT to De myelghed against ~ counsel LOT '
the questions In this case. ON your oaths and by youf
OF the statutes Of 1850 and 1863 by claimants reference
To the duties OF foreign merchants In invoicing ther
ported goods. To hnd for the Government II Is ony
Necessary 10 find that either of those statutes was we
lated by claimants; but TO find for the claimants YOU
must lind that neither of them was violated ey elalms
The statute of makes goods Liable TO forfeiture whch
have been myoiced with intent to defraud the revenue
while c statute of 1868 awards the same penalty IN cases
where the goods invoced knowingly at less than
their market value tThe Court charged that the wof
intent" and knowingly weie for the purpose Oh '"'
The jury then retired and after being out four hours
the Court directed them TO bring In sealed verdict
rIIB RERELLIoN AND THE STATUTE OF ILhlrA'
TIoNs. ...
In the United States Supreme Court, Peter
Hougen. plaintiff in error, agt. J.s & f. A. Abbott ~
appeal from the Circuit Court for the Eastern DStrcs
Arkansas This was action on contract, between IN Ts
zens OF New. Hampshire and citizen OF Arkansas s
only question presented whether the time uu
inc which the Courts OF Arkansas closed on account
of the Rebellion. Is to be excluded from the
OF time fixed by the statute of limitations WITHIN ,Se
suits on contract may be brought IL Is not one OF ~.
exceptions provided by the statute Of Limitations ~
Inv the state OF Arkansas The Court below overred d
mirrors raising the point that the action was aSne
the statute and gave Judgment for the paln ApRs Rsas
WAS taken from that Judgment and II Is now ugea ina
Rebellion did not suspend the operation = Si 'as % is
June lS6I But n it had attempted 10 ao 80
it would have been valid act o.osmenI oSosI
Congress Is without power TO make such an
To sav when and In what cases statute OF Dni.a'lo
shall cease 10 run is matter exclusively within % . can
troll and authority OF tIe Win IA on the other