The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-10-21

NhIllcT anu JustlCcb W ylic, OlIn ana FISHER.
The calendar was called with the following
result;
Dougherty VS.. O'Brien. Adams-Swaun.
Set for hearing.
wyett + Bro. vs. Fowler. Brent and Philips
Cox. Settled a year agoi struck from the
calendar
Tyler Va, Defrecs. Set for hearing.
Harris va. MotelAnd. No counsel present.
Schuchardt vs. Thornton, Set for hearing.
Davidson VS.. Corporation Of Georgetown.
Set for hearing.
Slopcr VS.. Foley Mr.. Adams announced
that the case had been settled.
Barth vs.. Heidcr. Set for hearing.
kilbourn n Latta vs.. King. Set for hearing
Redwood vs.. Metropolitan Railroad Com.
Waite VS.. Walker. Set for hearing.
Dawson vs.. Woodward. No counsel pres.
Harmon ct al. VS.. Moffet. Set for hearing
EQUITY APPEALS.
Birdsale We. Wclch Set for hearing.
:, Washington, Alexandria and George'own
ingtOn. On the application Of Kilireth.
DISTRICT COURT ArrEAts.
United states vs. twenty-five barrels OF
spirits, revenue case;
The Chief Justice. who represents the
twenty-five barrclsi
), Henklc, esq. DO, your honor. tLaugl-
self
Chief Justice. Set the case for hearing.
rue SUEWArT CASE.
nitcd States vs.. John II, SuTratt. This
case comcs UP On the District Attorneys aL-
peal from the judgment Of Mr., Justice WSlir,
sustaining the Gcieudanrs point OF law that
the Indictment WAS bad on it's face, In this
that II charged = misdemCnnOr to have been
committed more than two years before the
said indictment was found, aud thcreupon dis.
rhhiglug The defendant from the obligation Of
his bail bond
when the Gaze was called,
MT Mcrtick FHld that he had motion to
submit which would have to be decided before
the cas-" was heard.
The Chici Lus'tcr. The cnse must be set for
hearing now.
Mr.. McTTltk bat iay motion will have TO be
considered first.
Mr. Riddle. IprCHme the gentlcman's mo-.
tiOu is to dismiss the appeal
Mr.. McTfick said that was the fact
Mr.. Riddle. Then hope the gentleman will
nlc That motion now, and let the whole case
be considered.
MIR. Merrick. My motion must be decided
before the hearing OF the case.
The case was then set for hearing.
United states VS.. lluyck. Mr.. Dtvidgc said
he was not yet ready in this case, but would
be ready in a few days. This case was then
sgt for hearing, =
~. u, Harmon ct al. VS., Monctt. This was,
In the court below, AN action against the In,
dOrser of \ promissoTy note for Vi ,445 20, given
for lumber with which to build n fence around
aud otherwise improve the National Race
Course. The note In question was made by
a. J., love, the lessee, and indOrFed by Alex.
hnder Moiiett, the owner Of the land on which
the course was situated. No notice of the dis
honor OF the note 10 the indOrscr was proved;
the plaintiff Introducing at the trial below
evidence tending to show that the lumber WAS
sold to both Howe aud MUfctt upon an agree
mcnt that Howe should give note therefor
endorsed by MOhctt, AS chewing that both
parties TO the note were principals and also
proved the indOrser's promise to pay as show.
ing waiver of the right to notice. In the
trial below the plaintiff by insdvertcnce closed
his case before presenting the note In cvi.
dencc, whereupon Mr.. Philips moved the
court to instruct the jury that the plaintiff
find for the defendant. The court refused this
instruction. Mr.. Philips noted an exception,
and proceeded to call evidence Tor the defence,
in the course OF which, on the cross cxsmIna.
tiun OF witness, the plaintiff succeeded In
getting IN AS evidence the note sued on,
MIR. Philips, for the defendant below and ap.
pellcc, argued: First. The defendant was only
liable AS cndotscr. The statement of the eNi
dence shows this WAS the intention, and his
endorsement Of the note WAS the contract car.
rylng out this Intention. The charge of the
Jus ticc lett II to the jury to say that this en-
dorsGment was an original promise which
would vary written contract. Second.
knowledge by cndorscr of the laches of the
plaintiff in not making demand and giving no.
tice, Is necessary before wAyer Of the laches
can be presumed, mere unconditional
promise 10 pay Is not evidence of knowledge,
When plaintiff closed his case there was no
evidence Of the date of the note. of the man
ucT OF endorsement, the amount. where and
how, or when II was payable; nothing to show
supported by the proof, and therefore the Jus
tice erred In not sustaining the demurrer to
the evidence.
Mr.. Fuller insisted thSt the evidence OF the
contract for the sale Of lumber, and of the
giving note In payment therefor, which the
defendant below admitted by his demurrer to
evidence, was evidence on which no judge
would have been Justified In directing the
Jury to ind for the defendant. lie said that
the plaintiffs had declared against the de.
PENDANT Ms cndoTsrr, and had also filed the
common counts and thus sought to charge
the defendant: LIST, us M original pFomissUr,
and %, M CndOTsCr OF the note. I ndeF the
first branch Of the case, the sale Of lumber was
to Howe and MOilet Jointly; the credit WAS
given to the two, and It was to be paid Tor
by their note GU time. The form of the note
Is u matter Of no moment.
Upon the second branch Of the case the law
Is clear and well settled, that An unconditional
promise to pay note dispensrs with the ne
ccssity Of proving Lrmtud upon the maker
and notice to himself. II Ia said that the
promise must he made with the laChcs OF the
holder, This latter question WAS one of pure
fact, aud II was for jury to determine 1t
Before the close OF the argument the court
Al liallFf mad Ilr4tt 4 III.