The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-03-04

Fowler's lecture to you, at metferou Hall, Wed.
restofstion.d Seats, 50 cents.
THE COURTS.
UnthisAL SouRTCChig justice Cdrfer.-The
court met Nv tne usuai nour yesterday
:, The whole session was occupied with the In
dlctment against the owners and lessees Of the
a9neduGt ~ Georgetown lot nuisance
Yesterday; He sketched the history Of the Chesa.
gress, and of Maryland and yirginis IN relation
,ne WIN he snd tnG
he eontended that all these acts showed this
a9ueduct 70 be me main feature OF this system
OF internal navignuon, ana Congress had ex.
pressly recognized and authorized the aqueduct
AZ US present location.
4, Hon. heyerdy Johnson SAID IT. would save time
y ueiehdantsho now moved the court TO instruct the
Jury thn tney could under no circumstances md
= vefdiot o. guiity. Inc court was bound 70 no
refelsose tbcrc inc wauis gS snG Sy
gress chartered the Alexandria Canal Company,
And aIterwards recognized their right to make
anu IN 1851, SSooooo, IN aiu OF building the ague-
dpet nd In isu passed an act for the protection
OF thtalueduct by providing that any person
ing a. these statutes, II was impossible not to
see unss UNI, sn.,rm now alleged 70 De nni'
i've auIhority NOW, AFTER the acauiescence Of
years, Georgetown comes In and asks the Court
to tell the jury that Congress has authorized the
deIenaan perpt,bt n ae crime upon the public
10 iegisIate as IL uiu IN the case 10 question,
mr., Johnson qnotea new YORK case, tdib,
the Hudson river, and the celebrated Wheeling
bridge case, as bearing upon the question at
issue. IL WAS decided 10 the hrst OF these cases
well to domestic as to foreign commerce:
Inc court suggested mat me prosecution did
not deny ne right q Congress to authorize the
rested on the ground that the canal company had
not pursued INC au,horty granted by Congress,
ent had gone ontsds 81 that act In making tho
MT. Merrick said that the ground on which the
prosecutor rested was contained In the follow
Soar, in the case Of aeoIsetOwn vs.: Hie1andli.
"If Congress- has given the canal company
struction that company has not exceeded the su-
thoTity given them, either In the thing done or
IN me manner OF doing u, so as to produce the
sistently with The execution OF the work, It
wouiu &c aiinonit, as iegai proposition, to
The prosecution held that the converse was
also true.
M, Mr ,s Jonnson con,endeS 'hst the act OF 1880
at which to build the aqueduct, and lent its
pecuniary aid to complete It at the place where
II now stands, and made It penal, In 1874, to de-
stroy or inlurc the aqueduct. The case was not
here for the hrst time. Georgetown strove to
try The night Of the nquedIet 70 the river,
poration had no right to come in court In that
form Of action, but Mr.. Justice Thompson, who
he power ss S TO rue 'ta Ss sS
been granted the canal company, and that they
had exercised the right in accordance with that
the enterprise Of Georgetown, but contended
that Congress- could not intend TO give her ad-
yantsgcs which had been denied to her by ma.
Mr.. Brent argued that the case In u Peters did
not In any degree determine the question now at
ease, undertook to test this right, and all that
the supreme Court decided was that no corpo.
no right to sue the remedy being LEFT to the pr.
OF Congress 70 authorize the building OF this
aaueauet put eon.enaea .ha' Oongfess ma
granted no tignt 70 iooa.e inc squeduct at US
Pfesent PE y. Soh hsie spu,a allow ne 10,
,Smac 70 PC damned below hiexnndria, and the
but before court. admitted that Sopsrss. r.
very clear iansnagei Suoh eiear language was
G Gsea ~ Ins aci egsf no Wngenng Dfiuge.
not such a clear dSelsrstio6 Of legi,latiye sane:
,ion 70 THIS nuisance, as TO DC conclusive upon
The aniEsrsn rule was q that The GRANTEE Of
nrcI.a th.t arant ~ no.or ~ % th ek
on.sibie ini,,rr 10 n.Yigation "' W W. '"e ie"s'
htei s Az y. az 0oust as 70 the pro-
priey " tpnpans .ne aise hi 70 the iouTth
SnrcnSsnts saHs msae an saditns tta .he
y, =, nate maae NJ aaaito9ai structure In
ehv NJ ~ ihe powtiS sfan.og ny oansressl
III i",i meI.i'N sa'u ~ Wou.u prefer 70 ulscuss
~ .no eou ,'s ne Mspeu tnM tne aot OF
HHonsISSss Bac tne vahai company no un'
lrrhm nt Sn4icS o. sd'c iEf me agueduet;
I nme,e mus sn% soane n LII hna .mht mint
n,ust pe ,ouhu ~ ,ne iuea tnnt pupho I'M
pr1Vuneh snou,n Sy b m eacn other,
anu Viz aIueIue. oe ~ sona.ruosu rs 20
Woms, nn, 1ot Jot,r nn thIs ~, ~ ne
NJ nn,ISo n.y. sv nnJ ~, iSe., anu ~ must
Tohn.nn w. ~ ""' '"o "'o''oh VI mr.
a, sba "ins" ~ AZ N "a .r,,o,o,, ,ho ,,,,
.tpau sno S'oSo VI MT "S "rsu'heh'' inc court
""''"'"''
,, r
C!Rcuir CoURr-Judge Wyie.-Ehis Court yes
terday transacted the following business:
40. Schneider Il 90. VS.. Nailor. Drury-Mat-
tingly Action for iron castings, &c, for building
upon which there was no controversy except 10
the bridgs, The iiirv found a verdict Tor The
piaintifi III 1850 with interest,
200 Uickman vs. Edmunds Aotion of eject
ment TO recover certain lind in the First ward.
The Court directed the Jury 10 find for The plniD-
tin with the understanding tina the Court Would
see that the rights of ali PARTIES were protected,
and the Jury found verdict aooordinaiv,
a3T. Riddle vs.. brooke Mackali' II. Wilsou-
Mcpherson. Action of assumpsit to recover
fees for services a. attorney in n divorce suit
Mr.. Riddle charges for services in The Ennitv
Court, and, on appeal, in the court In bdnc, s656.
upon which he gives credit TO Mack ali for ti5o
The defendant AYERS that he Understood Mr. Rid
die to agree to attend to the whole ease for one
hundred and tifty dollars and the naintif lie Mas
that there was ;uSS Contrast. Wv '''" D'"'''