The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1870-01-12
AatiOual 3rpnbIifat,
THE COURTS,

SUPREME CoURT THRM.
Jultlee Cartier and Justices Wyllo aud DIN
eat IA baao for tho trial Of appeals yester-
day.
Jews. This was a Jolns action Of hssumpsit
egainst the make !. and eudorser Of prom
flaaory note. The defendants pleaded sepa-
ffately, and the case tried below was that
against the cudorser, J. O. Lewis. The
jary 10 thla case having been sworn 10 try
Tho Issue Joined between the plaintiff and
the defendant, Joseph o. Lewis, the plaintiff
offered evidence TO prove tho signature OF
the maker and endorser OF said note, aud
due demand aud notice being admitted, the
defendant, Lewis, called the plaintiff as wit
hess, who sWore that tho maker OF said note
brought u TO him with Lewis endorsement
thereon aud wanted To borrow money; that
he told him he hadn't tho money, but
thought he could get II discounted At Lewis
johnson a Cos; that he DID 60 with said
Pitcher 10 Iewls johnson y Co.'s, endorsed
hots, leas discount OF one half per centum
q month, was paid over TO Pitcher; that
before going 90 Lewis johnson 4 Co.'S
plaintiff called on sald Lewis and was told
By him that the note was perfectly good,
and would be paid NJ maturity that there
, had been badness tfanahctiona between said
Pitcher and himself, and that he, Lewis,
hNAa uDluNANANa VI AtNIuNIh A0I uUWhTuh Oh
tt,O0O. That the plaintiff paid the full
amount OF said note after protest. Tho dc.
isndaut, Lewis, then asked Court TO instruct
the jury a. follows
''The maker and endorser being Joined in
this action there Il a miaIolnder OF parties,
ssfendant' and the plaintiff is not entitled
which prayer the Court refused, to which
refusal the attorney for the defendant OK
RantaA md ka aa
Tho case was argued BY Matfingly and
Dayidge, and held under advlsament.
II. II. Alexander VI, Alex. Sharp. In thif
ease the defendant, AZ marshal for the Dis
triot Of Columbia, seized certain goods and
shAttels under and By Virtue OF q writ Of
' attachment Issued TO him In an action
brought BY one Hoover against one FrlEEep,
for reat alleged % DO due and TO become due
from Frik1ell TO Hoover. % ....f ....
While the said goods and chaitela were In
tho possession OF the defendant, they wero
Iepleyied BY the plalntif from the defendant,
In this action. Upon tho trial Of tho lasue
In this action, In the court below, tho plain
nn gave In evidence decd OF trust from
FnHSoll 10 him, executed before said attach
nient, whereby FrikEell conveyed said goods
and chattela In trust 10 secure tho payment
els certain promissory note-the aald FFiz.
sell 10 retain possession OF said goods and
ehattels until, among other contingencies,
the goods aud chatt0ls sh uld DO attached,
h which event the plaintiff was authorized
upou the written request Of the holder OF
said note, 70 take possession Of said goods
sod chattels. Tho plaintiff also gave sVL
eeuce that the said goods and chattels had
bean attached. #r.rg s...aE
The defendant gave evidence 10 show
that At the time tho said goods and chattsls
were repleyied from him he held tho Same
BY virtue Of said writ Of attachment, and
also gave eYidance that FhExell was the
tenant Of tho plaintiff In the attachment
suit, and had the said goods and ohattels on
the premises which he held as tenant at the
time the goods and chattels were attached.
That the tenancy began before and was con.
tlnuing Al the time Of tho execution Of said
decd OF trust, BY the terms OF which tenancy
there was rent due and rent accrulng and
20 become due a. tho time Of the execution
otSaid deed, and the fevying Of saId attach
pient.
Upon this evidence, tho defendants eoun-
eel asked the justice trying the case below
70 give two instructions 10 the jury, which
the justice refused 70 give, aud the eass
thereupon came up 10 the general term.
Tho case Waa argued and reserved.
The following cases were announced as
sottledi Gait & Brown 70. ThompJ on,
johnson W. Nallor. F
Fisher vs. HertEog. Dismissed.
Chaunou vs.. Green. Appeal dismissed by
Dir. Wallach.