, 1869-04-27
The COURTS CT Law Aao EQUITY.
United STATES Courts.

albert crus'1y under lhe Internal Revenue lIs Of
l-G5 ~
having aw.ulle nt I'D hi the conc al Il mt OF a
Larry: tl!nhtiy ot distilled spirits III Janu .y, l5j7,
Which had tecn rcl:1nse'. from the ,lts.,'lt.t Of
by, and otherwise tiaa 10 lonic.w 4; c.,prs.. ~
provided BY faw. tn. second indictment charged
he . d:tendant Cro,bs, also in .Ia1 .aE, l,;7 x.,h
illel +Iilits, subject to tax, wLcl, Tux had MT
s'ssh i'e' ior tlc rul'o;e Of selling The spirits
''1ti4 'ns design o. avoiding TIC payment ct the
ibeSc tEn Indictments have been submitted 10
:hs neun S nnon an aT;red @ STATE u iie:: Jury
'ii4t t,r defendant, through rrrs N nnuel Mtr.
I'll. nhFnker, purchased OF 1aan " the name OF
roi~, iits-u'r tats.ts VI hiSh.i inrs on the 3osil
:iiiatson Into nleol. Ti,c itce aIl at tne i,mv.
although ls*s than the tag tl:lc upon tic hI::l,.
,ss ~ +, Ss ,as u, ,o nrsst rrS isyli!!ns MI
At e for Crnshy, was informed by tic ven tnr tl1a
..e IVA W. selling fnr . las1y who must take ill.,.
ist esi u nsrey Tc rks M xas a, sTsa1, ho n
on Inc barrels were all regular. After the hIgf-
"iins we're thus purchased taey were through,
ltlsll!tss- III psInt II fuct although tue brands
am! nArk7 nn ttr barrels were all regular the tax
l,aa not nj nscn raid; Tlnre Is l.othln{ In the case
llla1 there Tas anything wrong nj, nit The high
wines except what ntusr from tr cir .uulst;,ce or
'ns rT1sc. n@an!cy, @ TINT 1t ~as below tile amount
alone renders him liable
LS Subsequent laH otsTcea declared That tht.
purchase OF the article in fhr market I,r a pr,cs
icsS Than the tax was 1'ri'n, ticie evil .,,.c of
LnoWlcslse on i1le 1rt u lhe purchaser that thero
hEhwincs, iut It Is caay TO c.nccivc tt,ot thcr,:
nh1ht be case whcrr the I'rupvrty might he HoIl
i"r i lsss lrs:r than the tax, uui II llat Is the
prevailing price X, the Markct, anu nny one ca,,
Tito the market and make The purchase nj es4tll
Ihls Of the mogr recent statrtc TINT It w..s irin
',nif evidence Of there hclnR something wrong,
hl where that NAs the actual nufke ynle of the
article there might III: question whether Tint
I.rfH,u }t:c1t case whs not met nnA rrlslttel Al
any rate IN this case there is nothing trniny to
can see IN the agreed statement Of faets, he Actet
ii, good fal's, luae the purchase ID the usual way,
n 1s se an paTfet Ms knoK wherT r., ts prSS
marks upon tho highwines wcEc regular. There
wAs nothing tu indicate to t'n that tho tax had
hut beeil I'aid 1t WonI hc MI list, Therefore, t,
told Crosby responsible under such u state OF
iAtt
l!c, therefore, will be found "not guilty" on
In IsHt,is7u, ICY.
Amendments iH're'-Williain y. Further, Of Chi
D.,'latufl-Elc!a.d T. Gill; cl Ch:caso; Mic,,ael
t;:ry. ef Waa!iurl Comfy.
.- hgw r.s!akEpl>G:.
Alexander +shoglrf; Fiailc:s J. Tlrry nnd Ly-
I:ia1i Terry, Of cAiraso.
Ctrcu1t Cour1.
Eliza A. nninn, ut.m!n!str,rlx, V. Illinois Cen
'Ea l;:airoad company. Case. On trial
| 1UlRIAEsT.
Mercantile Mutual INSURANCE Company D. NtH
! tork '. James Farr, Jr. For Sstisa.
NEW SIT.
Joseph lrnns ct Il y. Solomon s:nl Aaron Ar
| !:tll. At:achincE. in an ucion Ut assumpllt,
| where damages arc stated at sl,utN.
JUDGEMENTS.
Dal:itl #. Gale et al '. Taoln1s Kerr. Dy con-
fsS.P
William t:ln*lt Y. joseph blanchard. By con-
fesstun for sa,tts9.GA
George s bowen ct ais. =. Henry Morrenrorth.
| r. Lockwood :. TAYLOR 4. Was;l Tor SSH
Charles \. Eansul II III. '. Slne. For II, 4o340
G,nrts' +. Riley '. Sa1lle. For s.,I2a
James tha1nterlin V. Same. For S9,e6S.
tla'.,t- FAtett Y. Same For s2,7saeo-
| Charles 4. lseno c: alz- = Taalaas &. Hanson
4 tor 2l.25S.o1+
| Hiram s. Rich ', Ellen A. Rich. Decree for
| tignlDy.
| IL Mcvlckar It al. Z. Edward ScI,crt AS
| eutuIAit Damages E3,NH.
| amos E.stAl,1Uvk y. Frank Bunker md Emory
I i:1nlcrc- AssuMish Damages SoJ1.
| NiS1NG CLAIMS.
Robert H. ChlsptM II Ills. =. Sylvester NEselOck
II Ills. i to enforce specific agreement OF IN aI-
legged contract for tic purchase os mining stocks
! lie ce1al,!ainants rtprescn, that they were the
tended to make lfsst OF The ,ll but wlch !s, In
flct,. om!ttedy, these luties or veins being
the e 'sts 5ss e iSsussna Ssus Ans aeai s
OF sl,yer-heaIng veins, and that the defendants,
sylvester Wheelock, Ferdinand VI. Ilcru:nan
aud Robert 9. l'oune, Of this city, proposed III
January last to make purchase OF u,l-.lalf Of the
famc. A contract, the one IN contnn.rsy, was
then fsawn up for The sale ut tile half interest u,
'ss mt Il ats ss Per ns1s rs fns 1s
, balance being pay,hic tn installncuts at two
t:re ami four mouths, condltionay upon accept
anec Of The contract after survey. Thc7u va
!
ia he tates Inn: the delivery Of Iced Of convey
I" their conclusion In the premises, wiltn II th
) Jesuit was for purchase, The mines were 10 h
. | orkrd. 1t Is claimed that the examination va
l,tn,aIc, although party. WAS appointed TO thA
lid. WHEREFORE by reason u w2nt u diligence OF
the ra,t Of defendants. there has lcen loss. an
lhus cuuplainants ask relief uu4cr :Acls rca1lncs
! ~ iClu their llart Of the contract.
County Court.
, Fs:nte Of John. J. OConnor, VIII proved IN
;stsers tcstasacntary granted to Elza O'toauC
l:nteE bonl OF SAW.
Il Record rs Court. --.
l- ! Edwntl NAhct WIS RSntencetl 10 tho Count
fatl Tor twenty days, on hts plea Of guilty OF Ia
q ! Ccnt of pork.
= ! ceuy, and sentence Has suspended.
( 1he cas-. "f The People :. t1se Policemen, ii
!. dtc1cd for the lanslanehter of Aaron Tyler, q
l. att0fnes 'at-la", s.nau,a = on 11a1; ~ ,,x,
!. Euphla Campbell Y. George u, Campbell
T. this coke, whrh was for divorce. the c"mpalnal
st.d the nan to whom she had hecn married, ht
!."in the was then divorced, apwaresl IL cou
c :ad demanded that the decree he +,
q .s;.c- The same parties now appeared in Cou
b :nu Eskfst that the decree liz male ef1ectnal an
ID icrTttua!- The bill In this casc was filed OFT 1t
I'm tay o. w PRESENT n,onth. Il charxel 'ha
% tIvu1d hts wle, and that he had been guilty
Il 1Eat Otfler crime, In law accounted greater IT
parties were married at OEllgtyiIe, Canada. I
e The seih 'lay Of April, !ssa The defendant 81
q tnG ihc I'LL; wnistd service Of proe4.ss Ac
:. WheTeupen an os,ies OF reference wa> haul. Test
+ !nnny was taken and tluding hui that cricl
10 lad keen exercised io"afl the woulun. \ uecr,
" ct divorce n a. entered areof.linRiy.
i IN The neAi da, thu complaining woman can
= With another attorney Into court, ~Ih hLm til
4 al ten her husband, asking that this decree
r. set aside Tn tho following day ther tnotton HI
a Ing having been atowed} she filed an nIldasit
~ tls document s.e rtatt. that she hail no .lIlrc
: hr divorced from her husband: that at had learn
~ that hccrre Was technically imperfect tnAsmnch
,t- :sc iad net lycd here n rear: nnt that ene %
acted In tie premises only to oh'!Ec the Gc!rnda
s;ho desired 10 perfect legal seraratloa. she hs
H. ts: aslle the decree. In support Of this mott
-, tae nlcd Anothct affidavit. III this ehe q
- on'a mat after tho decree was {
&C. HINT the divorce was Illegal an1 that il she
be- married she would a'e 2hte for hixRn,y she til
he tMl lu!cd him to set It asu- She also stated ii
shc had since c1alulnetl The Atsiute III relation
&C, lvorceA and decisiOna un1tt IT. TINT nt,on I
study thcreo! shc nnds that when cruelty IL co
FPS r1Itrcti, tn this Stc the complainant ncd not
INK 1tect+stts have established residence Of
ed ,ear wherefore she Ia nat<url tliss the ntor1
who lat advised had 10 knowledge Of The L
ina There parttes orc divorced
aId THE POLICE cnuRTs.