The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-08-26
UNITED STATES COURT.
Proceedings OF the United States Dtstr1cs
Court for tho Western District OF Soutn
,Carolina-august Term, 1853.
IrRon DUB OWN ooRREsPoNDwr.l
TWELFTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS.

oiina. Bill for injunction and relief Mem
minger, Jervey & Pinckuey complalnants 30
| licitors.
Conn ecticut. administrator OF Nelson Good
wear. ct al. Va. James W. Gurley, citizen OF
fhe State Of South Carolina. Bill for iDjunc-
| tion and relief. Memminger, Jervey Pinck-
| new complsinant's solicitors.
Henry B. Goodyear. citizen OF the State OF
Connecticut, administrator OF Nelson Good
year, ct al, vs. Richard s. Whsley, citizen
| of the State OF South Carolina. Bill Tor IN
function and relief Memminger, Jervey &
Pinckney comp!ainant's solicitors.
The following order was granted IN the
above three cases: This case came on to be
heard on motion Of complainant for preiml-
nary injunction, aud, therefore. it is ordered,
that an injunction, as prayed for ln the COM
plalnant's bill, be granted. eD1oinlng ana re-
straining the said Newton Sims, his clerk, at
torneys, agents, servants and workmen, from
making any hard rubber for dental purposes,
or in dentistry, or from using any hard ruoDer,
| such as is described in said reissued letters
patent recited in said complalnants DILL IN
| dentistry, or tor dental purposes; OF IN the
manufacture of plates for ariinciai % ieeen' co., OF
setting teeth in which hard rubber ls used.
Said Injunction to continue until the final hear
inc OF this case, or the further order ofthe
court.
- In re-. Vt. Shumate and A. Blythe, as
siehees of J. ". Grady. vs. d. o. Hawthorn, Of
the firm OF Grady l. Hawthorn. Petition for
Involuntary bankruptcy. w. +. Earle, pro pet.
Hon. B. F. Perry for respondents.
/ .'Upon demand in writing filed by the respon-
pondents to said petition, that the fact OF The
commission of an oct of banki uptcy may be IN
o6fred of by july,- it Is ordered, that the
said issue be submitted to jury as to the SOL
;yency of the firm at this present term OF court,
sitting at Greenyille, IN the county OF dreen-
/ vile, South Carolina.
+ In re. ". T. Shumate and A. Blythe, as
sienees, vs.. D. o. Hawthorn: Sidney 81. Iur-
byfiII. OF the firm OF Grady, Hawthorn Tur.
byfill. Petition for final discharge. w. +.
Earle pro pet. Hon. 3. F. Perry for respon-
dents. Same order as in preceding CASE.
Criminal Dockek.-United States vs.. BenJa-
laws. Defendant pleads guilty, and was SEN
fenced 10 pay fine Of one thousand dollars
and to imprisopment for six months.
/ The grand fury returned into court with the
following bills and findings, as follows. True
bills: tar.
tillation without paving special tax, sections
s; 6 z and A, July 20, 1868:
. United States vs. William Long. Idem,
"No bill" in the following case: United
IN Bankruptcy.eEx parte Joseph Duckett.
Of NeWberry. Petition for final discharge.
Darlington & Suber, pro pet.
The Registrar, q. G. Jaeger, having reported
myorably, on motion, the Judge signed, under
seal. the order and certificate OF discharge.
.Ex parte B. 81. Wardlaw, assignee, in re.
John q. Ligon.' Petition for sale and to call IN
lien creditors and order thereon. ClaWson q
Thomson, pro pet.
Order Of reference to W. ]. Clawson. Regis
trar, to report after notice to lien creditors,
also for report as 10 lien creditors after notce,
&C. ...'. -, - -
Ex parteRH. Wardlau. assignee. in re. ].
william Power.. Idem, idem. s'me order as
Fl parte r. q. H.wardlaw. assignee, in re. John
g, Boozsr. Idem. idem.
Ex parte B. q. Wardlaw, assignee, IN re.
Thomas J. McCracken. Same order as the one
preceding. .'..-...--'
= An MpearANT pEMMoN.
In re. John w. Grady, Bankrupt, William L.
Shumste and Absslom Blythe, Assignees, vs.
David O.. Havthorn-Same vs. David y.
Hawthorn and Sidney b. Turbyfll.
These csses involve the same principle and
presented the same state Of facts, and were ar
gued together. g.
John W. Grady being member Of the hrm
of Grady Hawthorn, and OF Grady, Haw-
thorn l. Turbyfll, by his attorney, Governor
Perry, fled his petition for voluntary bank
ruptcy in December last, and in his schedules
showed assets and liabilities in behalf Of each
Of these firms as well ss for himself individu-
ally. His copartners were not served with
COPY Of the petition, or in any wise made par
ties to the proceedings. The petitioners in
the present cases we're appointed his assig-
nees, and fled their petition BY William E.
Earle, ESQ.,, their solicitor. alleging the bank
ruptcy Of Grady, the oopsrtnerships and the
insolvency Of tina copartnerships respectively,
and prayed that the firms might be respective
ly lyadjudicated bankrupt, and the assets be ad-
mipistered in the bankruptcy court. Governor
Perry also answered these petitions, and de-
nyrng that the parties had committed any act
Of bankruptcy. and moved that the rule to
show cause should be dismissed on the ground
that the firms could not be forced irto bank
ruptcy unless they had done something which
the act declared to be an act Of bankruptcy;
that the assignees Of Grady could not maintain
these proceedings against his late copartneIs,
and that they were unnecessary for the admin
istration of the bankrupt's estate, and that the
bankrupt could be discharged from his indivi-
dual debts without the firms going into bank
ruptoy. ~
Captain Earle. for the assignees, replied at
considerable length, adducing great number
of authorities fom tho reports and the bank
rupt authors to sustain the position that Grady
could not be discharged from any Of his debts
until the copartnership debts we're paid, or the
copartporship assets were administered in
bankruptcy; that copy Of Grady's petition
should have been served ab initio on his CO.
partners, as these were copartnership assets.
That this not having been done according to
the prescribed practice, the assienees had be-
come the only parties who could proceed to
heal the omission. and that, as the agents of
the creditors generally. it was their duty to in'
stitute these proceedings, in order that the
estate might he administered according to the
Bankrupt Act, and the individual assets be ap-
piled to Individual debts, and the copartnership
assets to the copartnership deb:s; and that it
was unnecessary to a!lese or prove that the
respondents had committed any act OF bank
ruptcy; but that their copartner, Grady, having
asked for the benefit Of the act, it became neces-
sary, il the firms were insolvent, that the as-