The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-10-30

Judge Wylle did not want to reply to his
brother, DIN. lie wanted merely to say that
much oil the difficulty which the Court met In
psd So to he Of
There was the note itself attached to the dec
laration, and yet II was not shown In evidence
to the Jury and the dsclH S ,sei5 d1i not
wise. He merely wanted 10 impress upon the
bar the Importance of observing the rules of
pleading. No man could be lawyer without
Judge DIN did not know what was in the
papers. The case came up in a bill OF ex.
main strength" that was all right. but II
that course were adopted It would be better
to abolish bills OF exceptions entirely.
Chief Justice Cartier said he FULLY d0neutred
case. He had stated the reasons so clearly as
to render 1t superfuous to add anything; The
key to his judgment In concurring with the
expressed opinion Is to be found In the fact
that this endorser was one OF the vendecs of
this property. This was proved and admit
ted fact In the case. There was nothing In the
case to show that the relations Of the parties
to the transaction were any other than rela-
lions Of convenience between the two parties;
nothing to show that the position Of the facts
sorry note. ii his view he took the endorser
as maker There was nothing to take him
ont OF the Obligation to pay an honest debt:
When the plaintiffs sold the lumber they sold u
to be paid for, and they never have been paid
for Il. The fact that one put himself 10 the
position OF maker and the other OF endorscr
did not alter these relations. The debtor
could not alter the fact by putting his name on
the back of the note instead of NJ the foot of
II. This view of the matter shed light on the
questions Of want of demand and notice and
the effect OF the promise to pay. There had
been some disposition to assert that this was
a naked promise, and there seemed TO be \
view OF this kind In the dissenting opinion.
The purchase of the lumber was Its oonsldcra-
tionj and as he was an original purchaser his
promise was good, whether or not demand
had been made on his co.partner or not. ~
judgment for the plaintiff below affirmed. Y
WHISKY CASE.
whisky.
makes 1t n criminal offence to remove distilled
spirits from the place where they were dis
titled otherwise than into q bonded ware.
the District Court, where libel was III led by
Collector Clephane against % barrels OF
whisky. found on the premises Of Boyden \
spirits had been removed, in violation of law,
from the place where they had been distilled
$. 5. Henkle flor the appcllsnts) argued that
the claimant Of the spirits was not called
upon to make any proof until the Government
had laid the foundation for primI fdcte case,
by showing that the spirits were not removed
the tax was not paid, or by giving In evidence
some fact tending to show fraud on the part
of the claimant. The construction given by
Mr.. Wilson would make dealing in spirits a
Mr.. Wilson (for the United Statcsl con-
tended In his brief that under the statute II
Is the ,predicament Of the property that makes
1t guilty or Innocent. The statute clearly de.
clsres that all spirits found elsewhere than in
a bonded warehouse are prima fdcic guilty
things and as such LIABLE S, to foIsSitTte tho
subject without further argument from Mr.,
Wilson.
Judge Cartier, pronouncing the opinion OF
the court, held that the spirit OF the statute
was to consider spirits as public enemy,
| which was In rebellion against the Govern.
ment,. corrupted the people, and sought to
seize the Government by selling Its revenues.
These IS barrels came into court bound to
prove their innocence OF being connected with
an attempt to dcfraud the revenue. Hemoyed
decree Of condemnation upon them, and
wished that all the whisky in the world was
| In these barrels and under his contFol-hc
Decree Of condemnation below:aiiirmed.
X RAILROAD CASE,
Mary Redwood VS.. The Metropolitan Rail.
road Company. Action for damages incurred
by falling from the cars, in which the jury be.
low gave a verdict for 81, 600 to the plaintiff.
The case was argued by Messrs. Wilson TOR
the appellee) and Bradley flor the appellant
The argument turned on the points of the lp-
pellee: LIST. That the court below erred In lis
authorizing yindictive damages in this case
| I'd. The court below erred In rejecting evi.
dence Of the instructions issued by the com.
pany to its employees.
The Court took the papers, and held the case
| under advisemcnt.
Browns Alexandria and Washington Rail
road Company. No attorney present.
| Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown
| railroad VS.. Corporation OF Washington. Mr.
| Bradley relinquished this case to Mr.. Cook
the present attorney for the corporation, an,
| case continued.
Rupert ct al. VS.. Geiger et al. Passed.
| Easily VS.. Easily. Passed.
| Snow ct al. VS.. The Corporation of Washing
| ton. Motion to dissolve an Injunction mad
in this court on the first instance under r.
cent rule.
The case was set for hearing this morning
| Adjourned.