The New York herald., 1871-04-08
THE COURTS. .
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Legality Of Indictments for Passing Counter.
felt Treasury Notes-Dependcnce Of Per-
sOnal Property Upon the DomiciIe Of Owners.
WASHINGTON, April Z, 1871.
No. 219. The United States u.s. Seth Holcen.-On GER
tcate OF division from the Circuit Court OF Califor
MIA the defendant in this case was indicted under
the sixth section OF the act OF 25th February 1862
for passing counterfeit Treasury notes. and the prn.
cipal question Is whether an indictment can be
found under the act. upon which anv one can be
legally convicted OF any other offence than
that OF catering note. bond, coupon or
other securityu Issued under II. On this
question the court below were unable to
agree and 1t was certified to this
Court for decision. The defendant contends that
the Indictment Is repugnant and Inconsistent IN
Itself In charging that he passed forged "Unlted
Congress. and that there can be no convic.
ton OF the offence charged because the
note could not be .'false, forged ana counter
Congress. There can be no convection under the
acc because Treasury notes We're issued TO be
passed, published and sold" and beng such
Treasury notes or securities they cannot be FALSE
forged and counterfeit The government insists that
tne anguage OF the section properly construed IN.
volves no such absurdlty and that there should be
conviction case submitted on the printed briefs.
No. 1885. TIE Home Insurance Conspanyvs. Wade,
ct aI-Error to the Circuit Court for the
District OF Minnesota-This action was brought
by the defendants in error upon a policy OF
insurance issued by the company on stock
OF groceries and other merchandise in St.
Paul. Upon their examination under oath, pur-
suant to the provisions Of the policy, the insured
had sworn that their sales for certain time pre-
vious to the fire were about $4,000, and their
gross profits during the year were about nine per
cent They also testified to their purchases for u
certain period and as the extent OF loss rested
AM no n
proposed 10 test the credibty OF their evidence by
showing the general course or business In ST. Paul
witnesses engaged In the same business there were
called TO show tnat grocery merchants In that
@ m m nau San not ,9r some years nad on hand
OF sales at any one time the average and in other
ways TO show variance III business from the condl.
ton Claimed for theirs Dy the insured. The evidence
was excluded, and, under the ruling OF the Court,
the verdict was ior the insured. The company in
sist here that the Court erred In excluding this EVIL
dence, anu also in instructIng the Jury; that on
their examination, had after The fire, by the agent
OF The company under the provisions OF the policy,
tue insured were bound TO answer any such ques.
lions as tended to inform the company to the
amount and circumstances OF the loss or such facts
only as were proper to inform The company OF the
correctness OF the claim 1t Is contended that they
were bound to answer all questions touching their
Kowleoge OF anything relating 70 their loss or their
claim.
No. 1874. The City Of So. Loats Us. Wiggtns Ferry
Copany-Error to the Circuit Court for ne district
of Missouri.-This was action of debt against the
Ferry Company by the city of ST. Louis lor certain
municipal taxes, levied by authority OF the city ord
nances providing for the taxation OF property with
IN the city. The company was incorporated under
the laws OF Illinois, but the stockholders mainly re-
side in st. Louis, some in Ohio, New York and else
where, but none IN Illinois. The ferryboats ply be.
tween ST. Louis and East ST. Louis, in Illinois, where
the real estate OF the company is situated, Wnere
its engineers, pilots &C., generally reside The
money collected and received by the company for
1errage and other dues, and also the books OF
the company are kept ut ITS principal office in ST
Louis. The ferryboats duly enrolled at the port
OF Sc. LOUIS under the laws Of the United States,
anu the company pay taxes them in Illinois.
when not IN use the boats OF the company remain
on the Illinois shore and are forbidden by an ordi-
nance OF the City OF ST. LOUIS regulating ferries 70
remain at the st. Louis wharf longer tnan ten
minutes at q time. The company pay a ferry license
and also tax on the value OF It's wharf boaJs TO
the CITY, On these facts the Court below held that
the situs OF the ierryboas not in the city OF ST.
Louis, and. therefore, not taxable under the laws OF
Missouri. 1t Is maintained here that this dect-
sion was error and personal property does
owner, nor does liability to taxation depend
upon HIS residence merely, but upon the
local stuatiOn the stus OF the property. 1t Is sub
jeced to taxation In consideration OF the protection
which IL receives from tue laws Of the place where
IL Is lound ana where the owner or hls agent or
manager OF IL Is resident. The fact that the COM
pany submit to and pay taxes their boats In ILL
nols is OF force In determining the OF this
property, with view to its being subject taxa
t0n In Missouri. The residence OF the corporation
is where Its business Is carried on. IL Is also
tended that the Court erred In not conforming ITS
judgment TO the decision OF the Supreme Court of
Missouri which had adJudicated this very question
In suit between the same parties, and whose judg
ment should control in constituting and giving eject
TO the laws OF the state in respect or properly
ated within and owned or claimed by resident OF
the state.