The national Republican., 1869-06-12
THE COURTn.

CiRcuiT Oounr-Judss Wyite.-rhis court
was occupied a. follows yesterday;
CORPORATION CASE.
Corporation OF Washington vs. J.v. Reeves.
The defendant In this case was arrested BY
Oficer Lsrribee, charged with VIOLATING the
license law, and hned therefor BY Justice
II appeared from the papers in the case that
Reeves was arrested for soliciting trade.h
M ss me me osass
was no law which forbade "solieiting trade,n
whether with or without license.
SSSs pSSss %as cover ths
rhe court. Read the Law.
Mr.. Cook readi II shall not be lawful for
any person TO sell or offer for sale on commits.
The court heid the judsmen, Of the Justice
erroneous and reversed IL.
Mr.. Cook said he had no doubt the Judgment
below ought to havo been reversed, for nthia
was one OF the cases which developed the
stupidity OF the JuHtice.n
J. J. Elliott ,ys. Reigart. This 10 an action
under the Ian ndlord and tenant act for the pos.
session OF tenement on the southeast corner
OF Eighth and = streets, which 10 held by Rel.
gart and claimed by Elliott, and for the pos
session q which Judgment had been given By
The case was argued by Messes. Norris and
Ennis, and judgment given for the plaintiff.
| OMNIBUS VS., CARNAGE.
James Monyal VS.. King 4 Keyes. This 10
an appeal from the judgment OF q Justice FOR
| $50 on suit for damages alleged TO have been
Incurred by the driver OF the uetcnuhnte Om-
nibus running Into the plaintinrs carriage on
| Seventh street and breaking u.
MI. W. Miller moved to qussh the Judg-
ment, on the ground that u had not been en-.
| tered in accordance with the act Of Congress
increasing the Jurisdiction OF partie, from $50
Judge wyiIe overruled the motion, saying
that the same forms which were used In cases
| under ESQ were sufficient In cases above that
| sum. The act Increasing the Jurisdiction did
not require that the old forms should be sbsn.
| doned.
The evidence showed that the carriage Of
| the plaintiffs was much injured, but the quos
| tion as to whether or not the damage was In.
ten,ionsl was not a. Al cSnelI,ivei a ,n ;,, ,.
said that II was n rather singular principle Of
law that II injury occur BY featon u 81.
sponsible II the driver intended the injury
| but 10 responsible II the injuries happen
through the drivers negligence. In this case
that the driver did intend tho Injury; but thi,
mistake was remediod by n mistake on tn,
part OF defendsnps counsel, who introduced
injury. tLsughter.l The evidences was some
what conflicting, but he thought on genera
principles that acolored man drivinga ligh
carriage would not Intentionally come into
collision with an jomnibus, especially n tn,
omnibus were driven by an Irishman, The
question OF damages was one on which there
might be great contrsriety OF opinion, but he
Justice untouched, and accordingly afirmet
tho Judgment below.
WHOSE TREAT WAS ri
| Fisk vs. Webb. This case came up on appea
from = Justice. A party went down IN tn
Arrow TO Fort Washington for pleasure trip
while there they were served with clarei
Of GS sSe soTs scO wa. question oa
OF which this suit arose. The plaintiff hei
the defendant responsible, who collected %
and paid 1t over to the plalntir, but denie
! that he was bound for more than his share Q
the expenses, tS. On trial before the justie
the fact that the defendant paid part OF th
money WAS held to show his liability for tn
whole. No proof Of the furnishing Of the Al
ticles, however, WAS presented to the court o
appeal, the plaintiffs clerk being absent, Au
Il appearing that no bill had been furnIshe
the defendant, tho Court held that the PAL
. ment OF $50 was no evidence Of an indebted
! ness OF the whole amount, and he therefor
! reversed the judgment below.
kenny VS., Oomstoek. Verdict on a writ {
j Humphrey vs.. Dukcman. Ordered to b
placed on the appeal calendar.
George Mason, assignee, vs.. Coleman ct a
, Appeal. Judgment below reversed.
u. s. Burley vs. Corporation Of washingtol
, judgment below reversed.
: CLARK vs.. Mayor OF Washington. Judgmer
( Corporation OF Washington vs.. p. Burn
o Judgment below reversed.
: Cooley VS.. Barkiey. On the motion OF NJ
Jackson, James and NJ. A. Queen were mad
defendants in this cause.
The following cases wero continued: Corp
n ration OF Washington VS.. j, Loeligcr. San
vs.. ]. Mcclure. Same VS.. 7. Green,
O. II. Matterson vs.. Gideon. Judgment col
feased.
Eliz. Kelly VS.. Matthew Kelly. Appeal di
/ missed.
A THE ASSIGNMENT.
Judge Wylie announced that hfteen cas-
would be set for each day, and that when
case was specially assigned for q day and WI
Il not heard on that day 1t would have to be Z
d assigned.
CAsgs FOR MosDAY.-The following cas-
are assigned for trial on Monday: Nos. 4, II
27, 200, 29Olf, 335, q 10, ID, 20, IS, 81, 81 and
d Adjourned until Monday.
EQuITY COURr-Juige Oiin.-This court wi
engaged as follows yesterday;
- Collins vs.. Collins; decree pro confesso.
y Harslip vs.. Harslip; order for ratification
I. report.
confessO.
ii Essex VS.. Essox; order for sale OF real I
y tate.
ID Morris vs.. Fox order amending decree
sale.
Early vs.. ENrly; order overruling exceptio
le to report, confirming the same and directi
m Investments for the benefit Of Mrs. Early.
~ ~ Millard vs.. Millard; bill for partition a
p order OF reference.
Mccarthy vs.. O'Connerj order granti
leave to file answer within one week
ia Adjourned.