Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-03-07
THE COURTS.

~
suPRrup CouRr or THH DISTRICT or Co.
r.rNprA.-Chlef Juutice Cartier and Justices
WHILE and DIN sat Ia bano yesterday
Wniys. KlmmIll. Judge Cartier delivered
the opinion Of the court saying that in the
case Of VIII 70. Klmmin, involving the fol-
lowing statute, the court have concluded an
opinion The statute provides that there
shall DO exempted from execution, &C., In
the case Of head Of family" &c. The
question IL whether an eating. house comes
within the provisions OF this act. The
court think Il does not, that the act was In
tended for the benefit Of families, and that
A grocery keeper ID not the head Of family,
although he stands at the head Of great
many dependent persons. tLauEhter.1 \
Davis W. Lewis. In this case, which has
been twice before reported, the questions at
issue below were whether there was proof Of
q usurioua consideration In the note sued on,
and whether maker and ondorser Of q note
could DO sued Jointly thereon.
Judge Wylle delivered the opinion OF the
court. He said that the court had com
cluded TO affirm the Judgment below. The
statute "a statutes, 405, section 20) govern
Ing the Jolnder OF parties In this case Is as
followsi "Wh money Is payable BY two
or more persons, Jointly or Soverally, as by
Joint obllgors, covennnters, makers, drawers
or endorsers, all or any OF the parties by
whom the money IL payable may DO In.
cluded ln the same declaration, at the option
Of the plaintiff"
In this case maker and oudoTser had been
both declared against. The question a. "a
whether the statute meant TO allow the
jolnder Of both was not without dificulty
but similar statutes passed In the States had
been construed TO allow suits to DO brought
by maker and endoraer, and the court held
that the act should have the same coustruc'
tiou here. He alluded to the other question:
involved, holding that the court below dc
cided the law correctly, and that his decision
shall be afirmed.
Judge 0lin dlssented, and held that IN,
note sued on never became merehantablC
paper or existed as note, until Il was
negotiated for usurious consideration, and
therefore void, even In the hands OF a bons
fds holder. He also thought that the charge
Lbelow tended to mislead the Jury.
IHumo VI. Beale's ,executor. The judg
msnt OF the court below was affirmed by {
divided court, judges Fisher and olln fol
Afllrmance, and Judge Wylie dissenting.
Kennedy, receiver, vs.. National Metro
polltan Bank. This Is a case growing ou
| Of transactions between the defendant ant
the late Merchauts' National Bank, thu
question being tho liability Of the defendan
for certain check, which the detendan
coutended had been paid. Tho exception
carried up several questions OF evidence
&c. The Judgment below was affirmed b.
a divided court. DIN aud Cartier concurreC
In afnrminE the Judgment. Wyllo ant
Fisher dlssented.
HAVE WE AMI NoTARrEs PuBLIol
Mr.. herrick sought TO bring to the motto,
Of the court . vexsd question as 10 the au
thority OF notarles public who have not 70
newed their bonds within the past nv
years. In 1884 Congress passed an act Ru
thcriIing the Supreme Court OF the Dlstric
OF Columbia to appolnt notaries public, lin
Ting the term Of ONCE Of such notaries {,
Eve years, and also continuing the commits
llons Of such notarlss appointed by tho oil
Circuit Court as should give bond, &c.
| In the case OF nearly all the notaries nov
doing business In this District the Ave year
Of their offclal life have expired. It Is con
tended, however, on behalf OF the notArie
appointed BY the old court, that they hol
ONCE during good behavior, and need not re
new their bonds. Hon. Il. J. Meigs, cler
Of the Supreme Court, has OF late refused /
sertify to the oficial character OF several Q
such notaries, and much doubt is eIpresse
a. 10 whether the greater part OF the notu
rial business now done In this city, the pro
test Of notes, Sc, 10 now done without legs
| warrant ana therefore VOID.
Those who hold that the notarles who's
commissions ante.date April s, 1894, Oh
date Of the act OF Congress- are mo-
6uRe,Us oDieio, say that those notarles orig
nally got their authority under the provlI
Ions Of the laws OF Maryland, and that th
then constitution OF Maryland named a
Officers who were TO hold office for good b.
hayior, aud declared that all others shoul
hold for one year only.
NotarieS public are not among the ofIlcel
named. Thus It Is said, II these notari,
claim under the Maryland law they hay
been out Of ofice for several years. II, I
is deemed the better opinion, these notarie
by giving bond under the act OF 1884, becau
officers under that act, they have been Of
Of ONCE since April 8, 1869.
Mr.. Merrlck sought TO bring the questlC
TO the notice Of the court by motion thi
the court order the clerk 20 certify 10 Il
otlcial character OF Mr.. Mckinney, notai
public.
Judge wylls did not think the questlc
could be decided on motion without the fac
appearing OF record, and suggested that
case be made on maudamus.
Mr.. Merrlck then moved for mandarin
and argued the question at some lengtl
The court held the case under ADJUSTMENT,
Judge Wylle said that whatever way II
question was decided there was no groul
for alarm as to the violation OF tho acts
these notorles. Whatever might be tho !
. suit Of this ease, the then notarinl &C
would be recognised by the court.
Judge Cartier said the court would ri
an early decision OF the case.
: ATTORNEYS ADMITTED.
John A. Clarke applied to DO admltti
10 the bar, and was referred 10 the StandlI
committee.
, Prout vs.. Robey. Motion for rchearlng q
! uied.
! selden, WlIhers h Co. VI. Brown. Ca
: submitted on printed brlefs.
, In tho matter Of the bankruptcy OF
Z Foley an application was made for an ord
/. to have this cause remanded. The mott
4 was oVerruled,