The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-10-08
LaeAL xMTHLLTaHMcn.

Ihe hegistry bnw-It Fails to Give n Remedy.
Court Of Common Pleds-Judges ALLISON and LualOu.
This morning Messrs. Dallas and Barger,
representing the Democrats, came into court,
and complaining that just Immediately before
their final adjournment the canvassers in GER
tain divisions had wrongfully stricken off a
number of names, asked for a andnddmus to
compel them to restore those names. But
after a very full argument and serious re-
Election, the judges both said they doubted not
the wrong, If they had been correctly informed
of the facts, but they had searched in vain for
an equitable remedy; the common law remedy
of an action for damages was inadequate, and
the equitable remedy of mandamus was inn
practicable. "Ghis, said Judge Ludlow, twas
the result of glaring defect of the Registry
law And the judges likewise expressed
doubt as to the constitutonality of the act of
Congress requiring the appointment of election
watchers.
TO the Election Officers.
lhe Court gave the following answers to ques-
tions put them for the guidance of election
officers
The registry is pri,nd .fdcte evidence of the
residence of voter, but removal from the dis
trict within ten days of the election dsfranchses
the registered citizen, and If his vote be chal-
lenged for non-residence parol evidence may be
taken at the poll.
Every citizen of foreign birth shall produce
at the poll his certificate of naturalization, to
be stamped ''voted," unless he shall have been
a resident of the division for ten years, in which
case he is not required to produce his cer-
tifcate.
Admission to the Bar.
On motion of William B. Mann, ESQ.,, Mr..
Elisha w. Davis was admitted as practising
attorney of this court.
ci.ion in Favor % Of the % Mss.rs. s%dsnreid. e-
Supreme Court at Nisi Prius.
In the case of Audenreid vs. The Philadelphia
and Reading Railroad Company, the following
decision has been rendered. 1t will be remeni-
berea that the railroad company refused to ex-
tend to the plaintiffs the same wharfage as was
were instituted in this court for the purpose of
obtaining redress for the wrong. An injunc-
tion was awarded to restrain the defendants
from deprivipg plaintiffs of their wharfage, and
now plaintiffs complain that the injunction was
not complied with by defendants. After an in
vestigation of this complaint Judge Read this
morning gave the following opinion:-
have read carefully all the testimony taken
before the master, under the order of the 1st of
September last the points indicated by the de-
PENDANTS counsel, as to which the master was
requested to report his conclusions of fact, and
| the report Of the master. The report is very
clear and lucid and gives an accurate and dis
tinct view of the facts elected by the evidence.
| / have, however, a very simple question to de-
| eide. Was there sbreach of the injunction?
| l am of opinion that under the terms of the in
junction the plaintiffs were entitled to an allot-
| ment of wharf room amounting to $3.50 tons,
| and such allotments should have been made by
| the defendants
The defendants made an allotment of 1850
| tons OF wharf room as rated on the company 8
| books or a measurement capacity of a little
over 1900 tons, or practical capacity of $500
tons, which the defendants refused in any way
to increase. There was and is, therefore, direct
! breach of the Injunction.
With regard to the fines imposed on the plain
tffs, if they were the results of the defendants
breach of the injunction, then they should be
refunded And this, upon the evidence and the
report of the master, l am unable to decide,
and it must be left for future adjustment. .
| The costs of the rpfprancn to he horne aud
! paid equally by the parties.
The following is the decree entered:-
'In the Supreme Court of PENNSYLVANIA and for the
Eastern District. Audenried Philadelphia and
Reading Railroad Company. Equity January Term
1870 No Co.
And now, October g. 1870 the Court adudge that the
injunction heretofore directed by the order of
April 1870 has not been complied with by the defendants
that the plaintiffs entitled to at least $3.50
wharf on the wharves of the defendants at Port
Richmond; aad the Court do order that the said
defendants do forthwith furnish to the said plaintiffs
additional wharf equal to thousand two hundred
tons, the difference between the amount already fur
nished and that ordered to be the rghu share o
the plaintiffs and that the costs of the reference
| master be equally divided between the parties"