The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-11-12

alleged damage 70 1888 boxes OF tobacco received on
the cars OF the appellants the evening OF the Sth
OF March, 1857 Chattanooga, to be transported on
the Nashville and Chattanooga road as far as steven
son. aud by the appellants road from that point to
Memphis. The damage was occaslOncd by hood
/ that submerged the whole city, and which rose
/ tory CT inc place. The plaintiff below sought 10
recover on ia ground mat tne company was boi.hu
~ SPECIAL contract 10 SEND tne ircight forward Oh
/ had done SO che damage could not have hap
because q" sr rg a Tona r nave Deea
TIC Jury that II the plaintiffs allegation true,
and mat rs q consequence Of the delay the property
was ae, royea Dg the ireShet and that IL w0ud not
have been destroyed bur Tor this decay, then the de-
iendant can calin no exemption from liability as
carriers account OF any injury from the rcshct,
e. lonid, ana The verdict was accordingly The
cause comes here, the appellants maintaining THAT
there wa5 such contract that found by Tho
jury Gnd mat II made, the premise 70 forward that
evening was voluntary ono, aud without consider
aioa. But it asserted tigat nc alleged CONVEX
sation occurred aitsr the freight was on the
r The alleged eoaat ss0 rora What ey tne
same evening were admitted AZ could stLl have
eneot Tor the danase wli,sh occurred could NOT %
mas been in!y considered by the Supreme Court OF
PENNSYLVANIA IN The case OF a canal boat combining
goods, which WAS wrecked by an EXTRAORDINARY
hood al Pipefs Dam. Great delay al this poin. had
been occas oned By reason OF tho boat having been
lnis tacI the boat would have passed the point where
the damage occurred before the hood. There 10
riers which calls for diaerent rule. They are only
ailswerabie Tor the ordinary ana proXinate causes
extraordinary go Pennsyivani. state H.. I7D. This
cause II Is submitted Is OF the same class as that
bert Pike aud II. w. Johnson for appellee.
No. OBJ Waitaas II. GaiaaeU rs. John a. Btyd.
Administrator, ct al, and All, Btyd, Administrator
de-, Us. GUnaeil.-These are an appeal ana cross ap
peal from decree or the Supreme Court Of the
District OF Columbia. The bill was fled In August
$780, by William Bird and Peter Hepburn against
Gunnell to obtain u settlement OF partnership ac
counts. Gunnc had been engaged in the lumber
business, and had u considerable stock on hand
when the comp!alnants became silent partners, put
ting IN u cash capital. AT the end " about four
years the partnership was dissolved, the complain
ants taking TIC books ana the remnant Of stock,
, Wnereupon Misunderstanding arising be,
t%es ane paS tine m was hsa a
colnpiainants died. and their administrators have
become parties the case was referred TO M audi
tof, whose report made Gunnc Indebted 10 his co.
partners IN the sum OF $3o3J. Upon that report q
decree was passed IN favor OF the Compliments and
plainants contendng that by the decision they had
been Improperly charged with oil the bad debts In
court below erred In not charging the complainants
with the aIno mt Of the deot5 turned over to them
by him. and that he had not been created w1th the
amount OF capital he put in Joseph II. Drad,ey for
appellant; Carlisle Mcpherson ior conplanants
In the case OF Dcming w. the United States, Mr..
Lander now argued his motion to restore 1t to the
docket for decision, contending that the general
power or the Court extended to the vacatng OF
Judgment ut any time within the term at which 1t
was rendered, for good cause shown, and that this
Is case for the exercise OF that power. The
plaintiff has given a general power OF
attorney 10 Latham to sell or assign the claim, bat
IL gave authority to consent to the dismissal of
the case Deming never personally consented to
tile dismissal, aud did not know anything 3bout 1t
until after il was done. His right should not safer
aQn 70 Iu asa, f,t,,
TO be sufficient cause for the granting the mo-
ton. The Court asked for the original! power OF at
lney from Dcmlng to Latham, and tie motion was
taken under adyisemcnt
Tao Attorney General consented in writing that
knew nothing OF the crcum stances or the case, but
that lie cordially consented 10 the :oratIon. The
Court further inquired Il Mr.. Merriam Dcming's |
power OF attorney at the time OF the dismissal hld
Deen extended. ana The question was answered III I
tine negative.
The motion in the case OF the State OF Texas
against White " Ches, for q rule OF nsi upon /
Judge raschal, was also argued the object sought
to Day Into Tue cour S whch he coe saei
"ne3r DEGREES ,es Of The court as tho c9anse
Iho sia,e Is largely mdeo!ed 10 10 him him
y excess Of tho q. DUETS n has haads for leTal
Jadgc Pasciol for Texas III tie matter OF va ious
SUITS fol the recovery OF mo, Than $4,000 Of Texas
l,lemaity tonds ana that he holds the balance OF
his fee. which lie believes Governor Davis would
deay him altogether. Judge Paschals answer also
AYERS tial Texas owes INN over $4,000 for publish
ing Texas reports, reporter OF The Sni RENE
Court OF tho Stale, which sum Governor
DAVIS In violation OF The Jaw of the state, VIII not
allow to be paid. Motion was now made Ia the case
OF tn: State OF Texas against George Peabody 4! CO.
TO have the naine OF Judge Paschal stricken from the
Gockes as counsel for Texas Against this motion
judge Pasha contends that having brought the suit
agent and attorney for the STATE and as his fees
are contingent, lie cannot be dismissed from Tie
case until he state shall have settled with him for
BIS fees. The motions were taken under aGylsement
by the Court