The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-07

Wine he was making the objection ne witness IN.
9. Did you hear from any person who was a
Diood descendant OF Reuben Ballou ANYTHING IA re-
70 ms Ser
4 from whom did You hear that declarations
A. from my mother.
soa bowenY me witness rapidly answered Yes"
before MI: CConor could interpose an objection,
Counsel for piainri6 SAID he oYered to prove by
the declarations OF the mother OF the witness, made
no" 10 sns IS ny me q person VINO
father Of the plaintiff. George W. Bowen, BY the
Mr. O'COnOr suggested thar 1t would be better for
counsel to put his question ana let the Court rule
@ Did your mother declare to you, and was 1t
repuled among the blood relatives OF your family.
sna S, me pIalasin, George washington Bowen was
Madame Jumelf
Mr.: O'Conor objected to the question as leading
At this stage OF the case the Judge without pass
ing upon the question, said he would adjourn the
let him 90 at three O'Clock to attend TO some I'm
Portant nuslness, and 1t was now considerably
Mr.. CHATFIRLp, OF counsel for plaintiff said he
wished TO make q remark. and that was that no
person should speak to the Jury on the subject OF
the JUDGE-0entlemen Of the jury be cautious
about about forming opinions on the grave qaes'
iernlty or paternity Of the palntfIG Be careful
not TO PREJUDICE that quesIlon until the whole evi.
op yo M qo
fendant has yet to be given. Therefore, l say,
gentlemen do not talk TO any one about the case.
and sufler no one TO talk 10 You IN regard TO IT, His
Honor suggested that owing TO the length OF time
the case had already occupied 1t might become
necessary for him TO pr0tract the session of the
Court TO later hour IN the evening than at present
He complained that the atmosphere Of the court
The Court then adjourned to eleven O'Clock this
morning.
Tho Union Pacific Railroad Company-The
Lawsuits Of the Late James Fisk. Jr.
Before Judge Blatchi0rd.
The case OF James Fisk Jr., vs.. The Union Pacific
Railroad Company ana others came up yesterday
in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge
Batchford. The plaintiff to the suit was the late
James Fisk, Jr.. and 1t now occupied the attention
OF the Court on motion made on the part OF Mrs.
Lucy Fisk. widow OF James Fisk Jr., to have the
cause revived The question as TO whether the cause
should be revived on motion or by bill OF revlvOr
was argued by counsel on both sides. 1t
objected by counsel for the defendants that Mrs.
FISK had nled no petition for revvOr OF the action,
na e II ITS orm was mot n
only be necessary on the part OF Mrs. FISK to file
petition In proper form requesting to succeed her
late husband as plaintiff IN the case in order that
her name may be substituted for MS IN that capacity
Mr. David Dudley Field, counsel for Mrs. FISK; Mr.;
James Em0tt and Mr.. s. p Nash, OF counsei, ana
Hammond and Pomeroy, solicitors, for the Union
Pacific Railway.
The case or Charles w. Pollard ana others vs.. The
Union Pacific Railroad Company and others was
next brought on for argument Demurrers had
been tnterposed by all the defendants except the
plant On the part of the defendants who have de-
INJURED 1t Is alleged that the bill OF complaint
prses two or more causes OF action, while for the
platnts 1t Ia maintained that the OF action
are cognate and may, therefore, be tried together
the demurrers only were argued These are the
two cases that produced so much excitement some
time ago. and In the prosecution OF which, 1t was
alleged, the safe OF the Union Pacific Railroad Com
M hoh rhn
originally commenced in the State Court but under
decision OF MI. Justice Nelson they were removed
to the United States Circuit Court. After hearing
the argument, which was purely OF technical
character, the Judge took the papers and reserved
his decision.
Counsel for the complainant Mr.. David Dudley
Field; Mr. James EmOtt and Mr.. s. p. Nash OF
counsel, ana Hammond h POmerOy solicitors for
the defendants; A. B. Crane. OF counsel Tor the
JOnn J. Blair.