The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-10
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


Property Captured During the Wharf.-The
LimOntonr Fraudulent Land Cinim-Muni-
cipal Subscriptions for RAILROAD Improves
mcnts.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 8, 1859.
No. SO. harrington Us. ,Saanders.--rne argument
Of this cause was concluded.
No. Q. The Neu orleans ana Bayou Sara MAJ
Company, Appellants. cs. anthony Fernandez and
BENJAMIN Fianders.-Appeal from the Circuit Court
for the Eastern District or LOuiSidna.-This was
petition In the nature Of bill in equity filed by the
appellants, o Louisiana corporation, against Fer
nandez, an auctiOneer, and Flanders supervising
special agent OF the Treasury Department
praying that they be enjoined from selling two
steamboats,, captured property, AID that the
steamers be delivered over to the company as
their property Flanders filed answer and plea to
the jurisdiction, setting up that the captured pro.
perry had been delivered to HIM for advertisement
and safe, pursuant to an act OF Congress. The
point OF jurisdiction was that by the act OF March,
1863 the entire jurisdiction OF concerning cap
tured ana abandoned property vested IN tue
Court OF CLAIMS and therefore the Circuit Court
without authority to take cognzance OF the case.
The decree below was that one OF the steamers be
restored TO Tie claimants and that the other, 'cOn-
sldering that the court Is without JursdicHon" be
turned over to Flanders as captured and abandoned
property. AS the decree was founded reasons
orally assigned 1t does not appear what was the
ground OF Discrimination between the two cases.
does II appear on what ground jurisdiction was
tertained in the one case. The company appeal to
this court from 30 much OF the decree
as turned over one OF the steamers TO
the defendant as captured and abandoned property.
The appellants do not file any brief nor argue tie
cause. The Attorney General submits oriei Oh the
question OF jurisdiction, which maintains that the
court below was wholly without jurisdiction IN any
aspect of the case, ana that the udg ent should be
reversed and the case relandeu VITA directions to
No. 3 %c R Reese s s Ias a1o ~ or Us. me
Uittef Stdtes-In Error 10 the Cucnu Court for the
District or CulUOJntd.-ln Decembar 1855, one
Limontour was indicted at San Francisco Tor the
alleged offence OF having presented Is tie Board OF
Land Commissioners, created under the 1851.
false writing purportlng to be grant OF certain
lands In California from the Mexican government,
with n.ent to delraud the United States, subse-
quentiy held TO bail Ia Tue sum or $4,000. On
motion afterwards made Tor continuance in the
case Llmontour maze aifdavlt that the title pre-
scented to the Commissioners was genuine and what
IL purported to be. lie was thereupon indicted
for perjury in making the affidavit and subsequently
held to bail IN one recognzance, on both indict
meutS, IN the sum OF $50 900. AIter some ATTEMPTS
to have the Indictments tried. ana having brought
his witnesses from Mexico, they could walt no
longer and returned leaving him without means OF
establishing his defence. In TINS posture OF affairs
he went again In pursuit OF hls witnesses, and as
alleged, not being able to mud tnem never returned
himself This action was then Drought TO recover
on his bond, and resulted IN favor oI the govern
ment for its amount It Is here commended
That the recognIzance was invalid ana void,
having been taken under two indictments
In the district OF California, winch were
acts when they charged were not. when committed
offences against the United states, aud not within
any criminal jurisdiction OF the United states. 1t is
1urtner argued that BY q stipulation entered into
between the defendant, LilnOntOur, by his counsel
aud the District Attorney, by winch an indefinite
postponement was agreed upon, without the consent
OF his surety the surety was discharged anu cannot
now be made liable on the bond. The government
relies on the opinion OF the below the effect
tnaS the acts charged were Offences within the Jurs
dictOn OF the court and that Tie surety not dis
charged by the stipulation referred TO- Decause ne
was at liberty at any time thereafter, before forfeit
ure, 10 surrender his principal. Il. X. Hoar AIt0r
ney General, and W. A. Field, Assistant Attorney
General Tor government. Senator Casserly Tor
plalntin in error.
No. IL samuel C. Morgan rs. The T5,rn or Beloit
ct dt.-Ths cause comes from the Circuit Court for
the District Of Wisconsin, In February, 1895, the
Legislature OF Wisconsin authorized the town OF
Beiot subject TO the result OF election TO he ned
on the question, to subscribe SOlG0o to the capital
stock OF q railroad improvement, and by a section
OF the act directed the Board SUPERVISORS annually
to levy tax for the payment of the interest the
town on It's shares Of STOCK The oouds Issued,
but payment was subsequently refused. and THIS
proceeding seeks 10 obtain maDdamn5 10 compel
tue levy OF sufficient tax for that purpose; and the
question is as to the power OF the circuit Court to
issue the WRIT The case was argued last WINTER but
was now reargued on the part OF the plalntlr by
Senator Carpenter, the deleldants not being repre-
scented.
Henry Baldwin, Of Pennsylvania, and Charles
kortreeht, OF tennessee, were admitted to the bar,