New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-11-18
THE COUNTS.
CIVIL

. CIVIL
Judge Nelson in the United etates r..
Court being engaged IN hearing patent case ,cu1
Jarret (of Niolos GardeDl agt. McDonoueh "PIser q
went oyer st nun I49day and on application Of deendsnga
more night, at the Old B0wery, before being one
until decision on the Lotion is arrived at '"'"hdea
In the U. s. Circuit Court, judge No,..-
haS e tne following pew rule In AdmIrsIt
from the District Court, any record which sh pea
aier De transmitted from the District Court no si
nent OF report found In such record OF any eSt,se
gwen ricd poee IN open court In the District Conr,
be considered by thsiCour evidence unless such YIN
lmOny shai appear on Its face TO have been taken de-
IN the same. manner IN Jury trials I'M commousn
issues and not Uebam, in deDosons de benz s
In the u. ). District Court Judge Blatcbfo,a
has promulgated the following new rule 10 eovcrn
miralty cases appealed from that Court TO tie u = ~
cult Court; THE Clerk OF this Court In main, ~, ~
record 10 DC aDsmlted TO the Circuit Court on an an
peal IN pursuance OF Rule No. SO, adopted by fine ~
preme Court at the December Tenn 1874 IA one ~ ~
rules for regulating proceedings in admiral,y'
shall not include IN such record IA any nor,iy,
OF the testimony on the part Of any nsrs
any statement or report OF any testimony given r,sr &
In open court, unless such testimony shall have 49,
taken down IN accordance with Rules i2l and 25 ~ IN,
Court, and shall have become the true mlnutes OF sc.
testimony in accordance with Rules i2I io roe uoa
Of this Court, and consent OF parties shall be OF anv
avail TO dispense with vary much Of said Rules no.
and l26 as requires such rira r0ce testimonv 49, ~
open court, To be taken down in the manner "A in
jury trials IN common law issues, and not UbG as In
be taken down by the Clerk the legal fees cargesb by
him. therefore, shall be taxable as part OF the costs tho
In the U. s. District Court, before Judge
Biaehford yesterday. the OF the United States ait
twenty Dallas OF cotton came tor trial The eOnhsea
ton OF the cotton IN this sought tho ground
that IL was held, owned and used by Magruder Tsylor
Roberts. Co., hrm IN Baltimore in 1855 for the pur
pose Of giving aid and comfort to the Rebellion. II va
claimed by the defence that this firm loyal neyt
having giving aid comfort 10 the Rebellion and De,
the cotton assigned to William L. Pennman by he
firm. in good faith, aud for the benefit Of tas
firms creditors The cotton taken possession Of hr
Il. G. CallicOt. Government agent, AudersOnyie
Court House where the cotton stored and before A
could the hands OF the assignee. who now claims
it, The point was raised by the Government that there
beng DDa cc cause for the seizure the Onus w uron
the defense 10 show tho loyalty Of the firm ana their
right hold aud dispose OF the cotton The Court sad
that for the purposes Of the case, until all the evidence
was in 1t would hold the Government had made out a
prBa face case the facts claimed by the Goyernment
as 10 the ownership OF the cotton admitted BY the
defense the only question being The 10y atty Of the owne
The evidence subsequently given showed that Of the
members Of the firm RObers) mad suCcOred Confederate
soldiers " some Of whom were sick and wounded" Ths
Government ended that the word some" occurred
in the written evidence, relating TO the sick and
wounded Confederate soldiers. the Inference thst
others beside sick and wounded were aided The COar.
directed the Jury TO bring IN a sealed verdict