Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-06-25

uon, W. A. Graham arrived In city this
ming. Raleigh Sentinel.
c,rroN.-We were shown yesterday by
r. X. Terrell, two stalks OF cotton,
of orr native growth, and one OF the
.oIv introduced species known as the
D;aLson cotton, both grown on his farm.
ri,ar are both about a foot hlgh, the Dick
~ having a little the advantage In tins
sou oct Int the native stalk is thicker by
rstP;rJ and has several "squares" fully
1n ad on it; whereas the Dickson has
fpw They are the finest specimens
have seen this season.
Raleigh Sentinel
4,swELL HABEAs CORPUS CAsE.-Mr. H.
n Haswell, arrested for the murder OF
,beriff Colgrove had hearing before
I,1pe Thomas in Newbern on Saturday.
Tho only evidence to criminate him was
'ba diving declarations of the negro Amos
II NOS The witnesses for the defense
,tsbhshed an abb. Haswells bail was
ted at $1,000, which was given and he
s3s discharged.
Al OPINIONS OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE
5ief Justice Chase, Saturday, gave an
.opion iii the case of the State and the
Foard of Education VS.. Chas. Dewey, as
H .uee OF the Bank of North Carolina
A The main point was that the Court held
A hat the State, AS a stakeholder in the
l Bank Of North Carolina, was not entitled
\ 70 prove the amount of its stock in the
4 ank as debt against the assets of the
nj ank.
In the matter of the United States VS.
che IU1f orr MI nal
Al ,5use of the ranking privilege, the Court
A III that the accused was gmltless OF the
Il Uarge, and he was therefore hOnOraDlY
4 ..qnltted. Raleigh Standard
4 /. S COURT, Saturday, June II, 1867
4 Inc Court met at the usual hour. Chief
| aetic6 Chase and Judge G. ". Brooks,
/ r5sidipg.
1 The Chief Justice delivered several opin
DIS III cases heretofore argued.
Il The following cases were tried.
i United States VS.. Dorsey 81. Bum. In
1 Hctment for illegal distilling District At
Orney for the government. Messrs. s. FL.
] Eogers and Jos. 3. Bachelor for defendant.
,erdct of Jury not guilty.
United States vs. j. Ii. overly. Charge
legal distilIing. District Attorney Tor
4 the Government. Messrs. Geo B. Harris
A .nd Wm II. Poung for the defendant.
4 lerdict of Jury guilty. Fined $50 and
osts. Committed to Jail until payment.
4 United States VS.. James Carrington.-
4 Charge illegal distilling. District Attorney
Il tr the Government. Mr.. r. G.. Badger
4 t0r the defendant. Defendant submits.
IN Judgment suspended upon payment of
costs.
A Judgment of the Court was pronounced
against the following persons who had
WI previously been tried by Jury and found
III ,uilty of distilling in violation of the reve-
N nue. law Peter Smith, John G.. McKen-
A lie, Archibald p. Mcneil and Angus
4 Leach, $3.50 fine and costs in each case.
Raleigh Standard.
i [. S. CIRCUIT CoURT--OPINIoNs OF CHIEF
4 JUSTICE CHAsE.-Chief Justice Chase de-
4 liyered the following opinions Saturday
asst The case came up on appeal from the
District Court of the United States, for the
| District of North Carolina:
l Elijah +. Moore rs. Steamer Charles ".
! Lora-M Anmwdky.-This is a case in
ltlreightment the libellants purchased
aertain goods in New York, which were
/ shipped by his agent, on the steamer
Charles W. Lord for Wilmington. Bills
Of lading were given in the usual form by
the master of the steamer.
4 Before the lading of the goods had been
/ completed writ OF attachment was issued
1 from one of the courts of New York IN
4 IivOr of a creditor of the libellant. Under
this attachment the sheriff seized the
1 goods, not actually on board, and levied
4 the writ upon the remainder of the goods
4 already in the hold of the vessel, as it
A would occasion great inconvenience to dis
\ rharge the cargo for the purpose of taking
Al letual possession Of the goods in the hold.
III The sheriff consented to receive stipula-
\ hon from the master of the vessel and from
he agent ofKthe ibellant, for the safe re-
A urn of the goods from Wilmington to
New York, and their delivery upon arrival
4 70 him.
AL Under these circumstances the steamer
A proceeded to Wilmington, where the freight
money was tended by the ibellant and de-
4 avery of the goods demanded. The mas
4 Ter of the steamer refused compliance with
4 this demand, and carried the goods to New
A York and delivered them to the sheriff in
lillment of his stipulation.
4 subsequently, the libellant effected COM
DGomise with The attaching creditor, and
4 lie goods were delivered in his possession
4 Z New York
A Under these circumstances damages are
aimed by the libel for non delivery of the
| GOODS at Wilmington according to the bills
4 ading.
/ The only question presented for con-
! Iteration by the Court is whether the
] MASTER of the steamer was excused from
1 rompliance with his contract with the
4oeilant by action of the sheriff under the
Snt of attachment and the stipulation
nude with him.
Undoubtedly it was the right and duty
Il OF the sheriff, under the writ of
";achment, to seize the goods described
the writ. He had the right to re-
move all the goods on board. so
lar as such removed was necessary, to
reach, and take possession of those goods.
lie authorities cited to US in argument
'nhelently establish the law of New York
70 be that the sheriff, instead of pursuing
MS course. had a right to take from the
Iaster stipulation for the safe return of
4e goods. The time he had possession
.Aaer this stipulation was the custody of
l7 sheriff. He had no more right to de-
4'er the goods to the libellant at Whining
"A Than the sheriff would have had to
GuEey the goods to that port and make
We delivery. The right of the creditor in
T'Scnment displaced for the time being