The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-10-13
THE COURTS.

THE sObhlb.
| CIRCUIT CorRT-Jufqe Fishsr.-This court
was occupied as follows yesterday;
| The Court announced to the bar, early In
| the session, that he would sit until Thursday
sor the hearing Of motions ' or; new trials, &C.
prolong Its session beyond Thursday.
The argument on the motion for a new tria!
| In the breach Of promise case OF Gresham va.
Liens was set down for to-day.
The same disposition was made OF the
motion In the case OF NJ: A. Redmond vs.. the
Metropolitan Railroad Company.
Besle vs.. Reside. In this case there had
been an attachment levied on certain funds
in the hands Of Georgetown firm. Judg.
| on the motion of Mr.. Bradley.
George Parker vs. OverbauEh, executor of
CHARLES N Gregory: Judgment confessed for
| for the rent of store-room on Pennsylvania
avenue, near Sixth street.
An interlocutory motion In the ease OF Gar.
nett vs.. st. Abe was argued by Messrs, Nc.
Pherson and Riddle, but left unconcluded.
The court then adjourned until this morning.
EouITr CouRr-Judgt WyIis.-This court
transacted the following business yesterdayi
| Fee va. CLANCY ct al An order was Issued
| In this case appointing commission to take
testimony, and the commission was Issued ac-
Hess ct al. VS.. He's ct al. Order referring
case to auditor to report on the proprety OF
| sale.
Middleton VS.. Berry ct al. Order rstlfying
trustees sale, and Of reference to the auditor.
II. Brady VS.. Peter Brady. Order directing
that the decree pro eoneiso In this case be
| stricken out.
ADIvoRcE CASE.
Hawkins vs.. Hawkins. Order Of publication
against absent defendant.
| This is an action by John l.. Hawkins for q
| div orce from his wife. The parties have been
| in court on divorce suit before; but on that
occasion II was Mrs. Hawkins who sued her
| husband for divorce, alleging adultery, SC;
| but her suit failed. Now the tables are turned,
and Mr.. Hawkins sues Mrs. Haw kins, to be
| rid of his matrimonial obligations to her. He
| makes various allegations In reference to her
| conduct In his bill, and as she Is now absent In
virginia, an order was issued for notifying
her of the pcndency OF the suit by notice In
Meredith vs.. Mann. Order appointing ]. J.
johnson guardian to defend infants interest.
| Grove VS.. snyder. same order.
Cranch vs.. Barclay. Decree for re-conrey-
Murray ct al. VS.. Murray ct al. Order ap.
pointing John X. Murray guardian to defend
| infants interest in this suit.
| THB WASHINGTON & ALEXANDRIA RAILROAD
BRIDGE USsAYH.
Davidson ct al VS.. The Washington & Alex
| sndria Railroad Company. In this case the
| following report was made:
| The report of J. IL. LathTop, receiver, re-
spectfulIy shows that for some tlmo part OF
| the bri lgc of the said railroad over the Poto.
mac river has been giving evidences OF decay;
and In order that no accident should happen
| by which the lives OF those travelling over the
ROAD might De endangered, ne mas, IN COnneC-
ton with the receivers OF the Circuit Court
Of tho United States for the Fourth circuit
district of Virginia, had An examination made
OF the bridge by competent engineers, as well
as by the foreman OF the builders Of the bridge,
and the report made by each and all Of them
rs to its condition, show that Immediate stepB
must be taken to replace Ave spans Of said
bridge and the south draw thereof, the length
Of which will be about 100 feet; and also that
extensive repairs are needed on the piers sup
porting said spans.
| VT Ia Of nj has
been in uss.only about four years, and is al
ready so r&ten that 1t cannot be efeOtaaily
repaired by wooden structures so as to last
longer than six months with the exercise OF
the utmost care, and which time would be re-
quired for the preparation and construction OF
such repairs AS are required to make the road
available for permanent trGYCl.
1t is scarcely necessary to say that, without
the erection OF new spans III the place OF those
in the condition described, the tfatHc OF tho
railroad would cease, and the property become
wholly useless to the public, and no revenue
would be derived therefroni, which would Ia
volve not only the loss of the earnings Of the
road but imperil the contracts made under
the orders OF the court for locomotives and
cars.
1t hss been estimated that the coat of the
new erection OF lvo spans and repairs OF tho
piers will he about $50 900, and it has been
proposed to your receiver In connection with
the receivers of the United States court 1t
; the money 10 make the said repairs, provided
they are secured by pledging the revenues o.
the road for its repayment, and also the stFuc
ture itself The revenues Of the road beiuG
understood to mean the net earnings aftel
paying the running expenses of the road, ant
necessary repairs under the prior contract
made, and by plcdging the structure, the par
ties so advancing to HAYES prior lien AM
property In said bridge until the costs Of sucl
repairs are entirely ltquidstcd from tho reyc
nues OF the road and in the event Of sale o
the bridge that such sum so due shall be
prior lien on tho proceeds Of sale, and be re
other claimants thereof, all OF which things
40, your receiver submits, 40. Signed AM
sworn to by j. II. Lsthrop, receiver.
The financial report OF tho auditor for May
, June, and July was also filed, and both 10
, ports referred to the auditor with direction
} to report on the pTopricty OF making tho 10
pairs suggested by the receiver, and upoI
what forms, sc.
The court then adjourned until Tomorrow
, morning.