The New York herald., 1871-11-07
T He COU RI S.
Convi.tanu Of Countsrfeitsr-Asaault on the
High Seas Heavy Sentence IN the
Court Of General sessions-A Warn al5
ing to City Desperadoea
UNITED STATES SUPREME CevaT.

ing to City Desperadoes.
UNITED STATES SUPREME ccuaI.
Decisisus-lnsurauccs on tho steamer City Of
Observation-Disclosures Loans 10 Railroad
Companics-Liabiiity Of sheriff. ON Illegal
Papcrs-IAa bllities Of Towbonts-vaIidity Of
the Sibloy Tent Contract Ahlrnacd.
WASHINGTON, Nov. ., 1917.
No. 131. The Ho,cord Insurance Company Us.
The Norsofch ana Ne,o York transportation com.
pann-Error to the circuit court for Connecta-
cut. The City OF Norwich, . steamboat insured oy
the plaintn In error, collided with schooner IN
such manner as to cause her to take nro from ner
furnace, and her light freight being consumes sne
sank. The insurance company resisted the pay
ment OF their Insurance. on the ground tnat tne loss
Tie Court below instructed tine Jury that, II upon
evidence they found that the boat would nave cou-
tnucd 10 foat, SO that she would have been lowed
to place OF SAFETY had the flre not occurred the
verdict must be fer the plaintin Tne jury so !ounu
OF this ruling was the main question mere, where II
was sustained and tue judgment was affirmed Mr.
Justice strong delivered the opinion.
Tne Western Massachusetts Insurance Company
Us. 4sanae.-Error to same point. This cause was
argued with tue above and ~ also afllimeu py tue
same Justice.
No, 16l. The Junction Railroad Company Us. 1he
Bank OF Ashlasd.-Error OF the Circuit Court for
the District Of Indiana. The question IN this case
was chiefly whether certain bonds OF the railroad
company transferred to the Ohio Lie and Trust
Company, OF which the Bank OF Ashland was che
holder, were transferred 70 the trust company in
pursuance OF pledge OF bonds or . sale u tncin,
me defence ocing that the transaction was pedge
OF the bonds for q loan at uSurlOuS rates uuuer
the charter OF the trust company, ana tnat tae n
contract was therefore void.. The Court ne. 6e.
low held the transaction to De a SAFE OF @ lme
bonds, and this Judgment was assigned rs error:
This Court now sustaIns the view OF the Court
below, and says that If 1t be admitted tas the trans
action was loan stlll II was not usurlous by the
Laws o. New York where payment was 20 1e 1e
railroad COMPANIES to sell their ponds ani notes Il
such prices as they may choose, Is extehueu Oy
equity 70 the companies OF other states
to transact business IN ONO, and hence the raroa"
company IN this case were authorized 70 soil, al
though an Indiana corporation. Mr. Justice Brat
ley delivered the opinion.
No. ILL., Bartle. &C., rs. Clise-Error to me Clr-
cult Court for Wisconsin. This was an action for
an escape against the defendant in error as Sheriff
The defence was that the writ under which the
prisoner was taken into Gu st0dy was ne erezt In
cause OF action arising on contract and was VOID on
Its face by the terms or tue State constitution ohu
afiorded the Sneriif no protection against iasc i'm
prisOnment In case he attempted 10 execute ~;
ina. nes s1IS ~ aac ~ ln Shate eansttnom
was also pleaded tnat the prisoner had bocn dis.
charged on writ OF habeas corpus. but objection
was made tnat the prisoner ned before judgment
was pronounced and that the opinion written in
the case should not De admitted as evidence. The
Court below admitted the opinion and sustained the
defence; this Court ailrms that good ground. Mi.
Justice Swayne delivered the opinion.
No. III. Steamboat Syracuse Us. Langlev.-Ap.
peal from the Circuit Court Of the Southern District
OF New York. This was Q libel against the syracuse
for damages done to o canal boat while in her cow.
The decree below was for the libellant, and the
cause came here, the appellants claiming that Dy
contract the canal boat was being lowed at its own
risk and that there WAS y, mn no e ns pa
responsible for the disaster. This Court say IL lS
unnecessary 70 consider the question Of me con.
tract as that the canal boat was being towcd az its
own risk; stil the steamer is liable II through the
suffered injury. Although . towing boat V not
charged win the same responsibility as common
+ o g
able care, caution and mariume sxni: upon an
SSs%i1a SaSas anns "a M Justice DAVIS dsi1ersd ne
opinion,
No. l5s United States rs. Burns-Appeal from
the Court OF Claims. In this case the Court OF
Claims gave the paintlr judgment for the use By
the government Of the sibley tent. the plaintiff
made with the government by Major Sibley. The
nad IS e. pay On q, s that
latons Tho Court Is OF the opinion from the facts
found below, thai the Sibley contract was valid,
army regulations pleaded. The Judgment is there
fore affirmed. NJ. Justice Field delivered the
opinion.
No. 1s0 Holiday Us. Kennard. Error to Circuit.
this case the Court below gave Kennard judgment
for the loss OF ten thousand dollar package by the
Overland stage Company; holding that robbery by
the Indians did not exonerate this unless he
was without negligence, which was fOund. This
Court afirm that judgment, substantially SUSTAIN
Ing the rulings below. Mr.. Justice Bradley delly-
cred The opinion.
No. TO- Untted states cs. Noys Administrator or
Aterdnde,.-Appeal from the Court OF Claims. In
this case the Court OF Claims gave Judgment TO the
administration for arrears OF pension alleged TO be
due 10 Mrs. Alexander under the act OF 1883 taking
the view that the provisions or that granted pen
sl0ns under 1t from March, 1S4S. This CourL he'd
that in view OF the action or the department Ia such
cases lor SO long period, aud considering certain
claims OF the law the widow not entitled TO the
pension prior TO the date OF the act and that the
judgment below was erroneous; IL Is therefore re-
versed, and the cause remanded with directions to
dismiss the petition. Mr.. Justice Miller delivered
the opinion.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT CRIMINAL TRIALS
Yesterday Judge Benedict sat in the United States
Circuit Court and resumed the trials OF criminal
cases:-
Conviction Of "a COuutevfeiter-"Not GniIfyc
and "Guiity.o
TIE United states Us. Rnodd. The defendant was
put upon his trial for having had counterfeit money
in his possession with intent pass the same. Mr.
Purdy and Mr. De Kay prosecuted on behalf OF the
government. Mr.. TremaIn defended the prisoner.
The principal witness for the prosecution was q