The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-04-02
THE COUR rs.


Appcals-Isnportant Dscisioa by Judge Wood
In the matter OF James X. Place and James d..
Sparkman, blnkrupts, which came before Judge
Woodruff in the United States Circuit Court on q
motion to dismiss an appeal, the Judge dis
misses the appeal for the reasons set
forth In the subjolned decision. In the
United STATES District Court creditors had applied
through the assignee III bankruptcy, TO bring INTO
the estate certain property, Including house and
furniture Fifth avenue, claimed TO belong to the
Dankrupts. This application was compiled with
except that portion OF IL that had refe ence TO The
ruin aNcnGe property, which was exempted nom
the s " ' fa ns s T99 Az appeal vas
u; Tue decision OF the Court below. Judge Woodruff,
DECISION,
says the claim OF the firm of q. J. Fischer Co. as
creditors OF James d. Spark man. was rejected by the
District Court and decree 10 that cert was entered
in That court OIL the 18th ol Jule 1870 on the 5th
day oi July thereafter the sad firm so claiming 10
be creditors claimed an appeal from the decision OF
tne Distrlct Court and gave notice thereof as re.
CURED by section OF the Bankrupt law. But IN
stead OF following up the appeal by entering the
within The ten days limited therefor state
meht III writing Of their cla,m--seiting forth
the same substantially as In declaration for the
same cause OF action al law, when the assignee
should plead AID the cause proceed to trial as In
acton at law commenced ana prosecuted In the
usual manner III this court, which, by section
~ Of the act and 70 OF the General Orders
IN bankruptcy such claimants required 10
do-ihcy did nothing by way OF statement or decla-
Ration, nor even entering such appeal In this Court
during the said ten days. nor have they. al aay
time since, fled such statement or declaration.
Both the statroe and the rule REQUIRE that
II 81 AL be done wnen the appeal Is entered IN this
Court. nave heretofore ned-Ia re Cslum Us Cole
maa bankrupt, III the Northern District OF New
iolk-that Noncompliance with the provisions
OF secaens and "a and rule 26 were grounds
Tor discussing an appeal or attempted APP
peal 10 Tins Court, and ind reason 10 doubt The
correctness OF my decision IN thar case. The
counsel Tor the claimant appears IN this case 10
nave adopted another practice tnan tna prescribed
IN sections ana "a for the egieW OF The
decision made BY Inc District Court Alter the ten
GAYS lad expired allowed TO perfect the appeal and
On the ION day Of July, he hled u pctll0a lor the
review OF tnat decision as in cases provided Tor IN
section o. the act In this he mas overlooked or
mas nor fully considered the language OF that
ton. The power OF review given by that section is
on b &c. there 0aG y Y ps
confhed to cases III which no special provision
Is otherwise made For the case OF persons Claim
ing W oe Creditors but Wnose claims are, upon the
one hahd or on tue other allowed, special pro-
Visions made IN sections and "A, ana these
sections contemplate not mere review Of the adJli-
dica.ion IN the District ,onrl, out Trial vi The
questions or lace by o jury upon peadngg and an
murrer. IL was plainly intended to give to the
parry claiming TO pe creditor aad to the assignee
contesting claim the privilege OF such a
should pc permitted to trial on the petition for
review OF sucn statement as the statute requires.
days prescribed py the general orders in oang-
rui toy could ue obyiated by the assum tlon THIS
court 10 extend the rule or relieve rom the
quehces OF dsregard,ng 1t will not avail the appel
lants. The petition Tor review Is neither IN form,
nor substance Il declaration upon the supposed
plead and 60 10 trial. IL IS statement OF
what took place In the District Court and AYERS
that tile proceedings there erroneous IL requires
INT tDe proceedings IN that court can be brought
III thls court Tor examination. not upon any issue
wncm can oe i i py Jny bur upon me record
clerk oi That court has returned these proceedings,
anu they are placed refore me on this motion II
any iuter contest was TO be had after the rejection
OF the cam, the assignee mad the right that IL not
only he expedited In accordance with the general
design OF the bankrupt law, bring the settlement
oil e.iales TO conclusion rs speedily practicable
Dut also TO have the further examination of the clam
conducted ike ordinary action at law, IN WHICH,
II the facts are dlsputed there may be trial by
Jury. Tie appeal must be dismissed.
The Chadwick Bond case.
At the last term OF the court George W. Chadwick
was convicted for having altered and uttered a
United States nve-twenty pond OF the denomination
Of o0o Sentence was then postponed. Mr.. Full.
lerton, counsel Tor Chadwick, asked a delay OF
week 10 prepare afildavits i'll mitigation OF punish
ment. District Attorney Davis said he would 40
nothing 10 unavOrably Influence The Court as to the
sentence that ought to pe pronounced upon the prl
soner.
Judge Woodruff observed that this was an extreme
case, and he would not willingly do anything to
place Chauwck before the Court III an unavorabe
light lie concurred In the remark OF counsel, hat
delay could not preJklIce the case; Il would merely
pTooitg Ol Tue prisoner. Num-
Ders OF letters mad been addressed to INN by female
relatives OF the prisoner, appealing the Court for
mercy. THIS conduct the Court considered unfair,
but he could no. blame those persons Tor lhe feelings
ty which they were a1iaared he ordered further
suspension OF sentence TIL Saturday next, ana
directed that the afdavits FAVOR OF The prisoner
be given TO the District AuorneJ before Wednesday.
In Bankruptcy.
VOLUNTARY PETITIONS.
:. The rollowing voluntary petitions were fled during
the Week:-iuius WaterAouse, William Desendorf
DISCHARGES.
Jacob b. Lent, Thomas Douglass
ADluDIcArIoNS IN INVOLUNTARY CASES.
Clemeniina 4. Rcha lson, Wkllam Welcn Albert
G. Samson, Wesley Stoney.