The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-03-28
THE COURTS.

Nss '. ID.
Chaplin, WIN. II. Harrison; Con, Geo. W. Maher,
A. Con, @. +. Muth; 1. s., J, II. Dubant; d. r.,
q. HySey.
THE COURTS.
CRIMINAL CouRr--CAief Justice Cdrisr.-This
court transacted no business yesterday.
EoUirY. CounT-Judge Fisher.-The following
orders were made yesterday;
1850, Mitchell VS.. Dayton. Order ratifying the
report Of auditor, the counsel consenting thereto
fooo. John b. Goldsmith vs. Sarah Jane Gold.
smith. Decree of divorce pincuio mdiriomonii.
TSs bill In al Ss:s .s firth e hs tho S
Reese, and soon after removed TO Baltimore;
that Mrs. Goldsmith there left her husband and
Martin with Whom she so6aStcd Without viii e esSI
warrant. Upon reading deposltions proving
these facts, Judge Fisher granted the decree
Adjourned.
CnouIr CoyRr-Judge Wak.-This court was
occupied as follows yesterday:
n essSs Ga 'ss ta
The plaintiff and which he had scs S t"i Be
fore the case was submitted to the jury the
plaintiff suffered a non-suit In order to seek
: $40. John T. Robey VS.. Robert Prent. Totten;
This Is the trial of the following issue sent
Robey, the original complainant in this suit, was
born OF the body OF Mrs. Jane Mallion, the
esari que irua from VIM. Prent lessor to Jonathan
The facts Of this case and the order for thi.
Issue were reported In our court proceedings
When the case was on trial before the Equity
tin claims an estate In certain house In this city
BY reason OF his hclrship Of Mary Jane Robey
MsG SnlP NED to be tae only aaaEhter Of Jane
Mary Jane Robey died in the alms-housc during
the progress Of the suit, and Il has been revived
mcnt In the having bcpn cOucluupI and n
short charge delivered by the Judge, the jury
found that Mary Ann Rodgers was the Issue or
soSnldp w. 1 M.aaa e9N ]. Miller, N. II. Mil
Ter. Action for goods furnished defendant. The
case was tried few days since, but the verdict
the close OF thccase the jury were rcspited till
Sssr qS Tsoy J .s ,saaS ::
sss. Berry& DO VS.. Collins. Judgment con.
sos. Weaver vs.. Kennedy. Death of defendant
suggested and case continued.
33i. Embry, vs.; Hood. Settled upon terms
lb7. Walters VS.. Walsh. Mr.. Mattingly, the
referee to whom this case was referred, nled his
iSTs. tDocket.) James VS.. Housch. Declare
ti0g amended by consent OF counsel,
The following oasos were continued: Henry
MeSonvey VS.. aiving's executor; Mary a.
Schultz.
M, CASKS TODAY.
The following cases are assigned for to-day +:
Nos So W "a u, s2 81, So, lQ+, 100, $780, go, 22l,
222 2s, 49, 2Ts, 2'9 aoi ai, $780, $780, s's, 49, and
Adjourned.
SUPREME Court OF THE UNITED STATES
Carpenter, esq, Thomas II. Hood, esq., OF wis.
consin, was admitted to practice as an attorney
and counsellor OF this court,
Data n.Nt ala luNl
vs.. Emeiie de ia Ronio. widow, SC. On motion
of M the sSq hH that the
and the superccdcas annulled.
No. " OF December term, 1860. Jose Maria
Alviso, appellant, VS., the United States. The
motion to reinstate this case on the docket was
argued by Mr.. Joseph II. Bradley, ar, In support
Of the same, and by Mr.. Wills In opposition
IL parie Martin L MeGnl. Mr.. W. q. M. Da-
Wis filed and argued motion to docket this cause,
and advance the same for argument at the pres
ent term Of the court.
George Wright ct al. Appeal from the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the northern dis.
bS tho court thst t%ia nppes Ss
No, iss. The Washington Il Georgetown Rail-
Hutton. In error to the Supreme Court OF the
District OF Columbia. On motion OF Mr.. Merrick,
Of counsel for the defendants in error, ordered by
with costs-per stipulation OF counsel.
Nos; i61, ISs, ico, loo, continued
argued by Mr.. Durant, of counsel for the appel
liant, and Mr.. Ashton for the appellee.
Nc. iGs Ths Steamer Capitol, &C., appellants,
Mr.. Mcpherson and Mr.. Carlisle, Of counsel for
the appellant, and by Mr.. Ashton for the ap.
Nos. 100, Ill, Ia, continued.
No: l1s will hs the hrst case called Oh Monday.
Adjourned until Monday morning at II o'clock.
Proeeedings PursIani-Er.Tfr riioriai Juri,diefion
the Unlied States dppellaEts, r.. Simeon Hart
44Ppss, from ne sapreiHe Court efne Territory Of
On the 22d day of September. lsG5,a libel of in.
formation was filed Ia the name Of the United
states pGrportiag to be under The connseation
situated IN the county OF FL Paso, Texas, the
property Of Hart, who was there a resident.
The property was seized by the marshal Of the
The District Court decreed condo mn alton, and
the supreme Court OF the Territory reversed the
decree, on the ground that the court was with
out jurisdiction to make It, being without jurls.
diction over real estate situated In the state of
Texas
From this decision the Government appeals,
contending that by the act Of Congress of March
1908 passed to facilitate the collection of re-
venue In II Paso county, Texas, and in the Ter
given,
Section two Of the aet. provides THAT the
leo shall extend over the citizens Of Ell Paso
county Texas, only In cases not instituted by
indictment, and the trial and proceedings for
violations OF the revenue laws In said District
Court Of New Mexico, shall DO the same as In
other district courts Of the United States in
vested with admiralty powers
Section provides that the District Court OF
the Territory OF New Mexico shall have and
exercise Jurisdiction over all cases which shall
arise In the collection district Of Paso del Norte
In the administration Of the revenue laws, In
the same manner as II the said district was
entirely within the Territory Of New Mexico;
The claimant, Hart submits that this legisla-
tion, extending the jurisdiction Of the district
court OF New Mexico, over citizens Of FL Paso
county, Texas, In certain revenue cases, mani
testify confers no jurisdiction whatever In pro-
tion act OF July II, 1862. Nor had the district
court, as court OF admiralty, any Jurisdiction OF
the subject, The doctrine Is vol settled, that In
tho trial Of all OF seizure on land the court
sits as q court OF common law, and that In all
cases at common law the trial must be by Jury
This cause was one of seizure on land, and there
was error, therefore, In trying the cause upon
testimony taken or parie before commissio ner
and without the Intervention OF Jury.
The seventh section OF the conhsoatlon act,
under which tho proceeding 10 instituted, pro-
yidps that proceedings In court to secure the
condemnation and salO OF any property seized
under tho act, shall be IN rem, and shall conform
as nearly as may be, to proceedings In admiralty
or revenue cases, and these proceedings" are
proceedings In the course of practice
adopted BY the district courts, in cases Of seizure
In rem
These propositions arc argued at considerable
. Nj: Ashton for the United ststesi Mr., Leech
for tho claimant.
Oysters.