Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-01-27

in November last, In which tho plaintiff
prays for q divorce on the ground OF adul-
terry, alleged 10 have been committed BY tho
defendant With Mas Bonney and Miss 0fit-
fth, OF ADDISON, Michigan. The court made
an order authorizing o. II. simonds, Of
Grand Rapids, Michigan, to take testimony.
Adjourned.
SUPREME CoUHT-uHNBBAL TERN.-All
the judges OF the Supreme Court sat IN bdns
yesterday.
wsilach "a. wallach. The argumen, in
this case, begun and reported several days
since, was concluded. The court took the
papers and reserved the decision Of the caso,
Nicholas Barth, complainant, We. John FL
Heider OF al, defendants. This is an appeal
from decree Of the Court OF Equity. Tho
bill Of complaint was filed on the 9th OF
December, 1858, for the purpose OF setting
aside deed Of trust made by the defendant,
John y. Heidsr, to William Bergman and
William Helder, conveying certain real ee-
tate to them, the survivors OF them, their
heirs and assigns, In trust for the sole use
and benefit OF Mary Helder, wife Of said
John +. Helder, during the term Of her
natural life, and aiter her death TO convey
the same 70 the children Of John Y. Helder,
sc. The bill charges that complainant OBJ
talned a Judgment at law against defendant,
John r. Helder, for false imprisonment,
AAoAd0A bANhh WIN hkoAlluk
q watch, and had him arrested and held IN
the station-house to answer, and the charge
was not sustained; that said deed was made
with Intent TO defrnud, delay and hinder
said complainant In collecting said judgment.
The bill charges that the defendant, John
r. Heldcr, has no property within the Juris-
dlctlon Of the Court subject TO execution, and
can only mako his Judgment through
Court OF Equity. The answer OF defendant
| uatdar ha he Ofhor pror,ovty yvIthtn
the Jurisdiction Of tue court subject to exc
cutlon. Tho cAuso heard on bill and
auswers-the answers must be taken az
| true, and where the answers swear away the
allegation OF the bill, and show that COM
plalnaut has not exhausted his remedy at
law, tho bill must be dismissed. The writ Of
JfsrI IdeiaS was Issued on complainant's
Judgment on the 30th day Of November,
| 1868, and returned nulld bona by the Marshal
on the 9Th day OF December, 1868. Mat
tiugly appeared for the plaintiff, and Miller
| for the defence. The case was argued by
council, but not decided.
Judge Cartier pronounced tho opinion Of
the court, affirming tho decree below. lie
said the court found no embarrassment In
this case. The creditor In this case, although
the origin OF hls claim was unllquidated
damages arlsing sr dsliefo, yet these damages
had by a judgment at law been resolved
into debt made sr eontrdetu by open action
OF law. The complainant was a creditor
whose judgment lien must DO preferred 10
that OF any right arlsIng from q conveyance
without valuable consideration. Thoro was
no such confederation passing from the wife
to the husband as would sustain the deed
against a bona fds creditor who asked the
assistance Of a court OF equity. Tho do
PENDANT had eoniendod that as the return
day Of the Jfsri .Ideids was sixty days from
the time II went Into tho hands OF the mar
shal, the plaintiff could not file his bill TO
set aside the deed until the expiration OF the
sixty days, because non eonstat tho defend
ant might within sixty days have acquired
property sufficient to satisfy tho feri .fdeids.
But In this case the marshal had returned
the writ nUlld bona, and II the sheriff by any
return, early or tnrdy, did not do his duty,
that was question between the sheriff and
the Judgment creditor. The court therefore
affirmed the decree.
Mr.. Riddle gave notice ofan appeal TO the
\ suprsme Court OF the United States.
- RULING OK THr RULRs.
Il Doc VS.. Bean. In this case Mr., Bradley,
case under rule 81. The plaintiff had filed
his declaration, and tho defendant plead not
guilty in August last, and no further move.
meut In the case had aimee been made.
Rule 81 Ia as follows
"Aiter plea filcd and served the plaintiff
shall reply, and amer replication filed the
defendant shall rejoln, and so on TIL Issue
is Joined, within ten days Of the last plead
ing filed, including the day OF such fling;
otherwise the suit may DO dismissed or Judg-
ment taken by default, according as the
failure is by plaintiff or defendant"
Mr.. Bradley thought that under the rule
q siniltSr was necessary before the case
could DO brought TO an issue, and that the
case was In position which required lie
| dismissal.
Juugs cartier neld that tF.L-u'' IN suo
rule was to be considered "may," and that
In the case before the court tho filing Of the
plea "not guilty" made up an Issue upon
which notice OF trial, under rule forty-tWo,
could be given aud placed upon the trial
calendar. ......
| The motion To dismiss was oyerTuled.
The seyenty-ninth section Of the English
common law procedure act, from which rule
thlrty-one Ia derived, allows the defendant,
whose plea goes to denial Of the whole OF
the plaintiffs course Of action, TO put In a
joinder OF Issue for the plaintiff, and thus
conclude the pleadlngs. 1t is probable that
such an addition will DO made TO rule thirty
one BY order OF court.
i Adjourned.