The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-09

4 sssrt Nrsshed os A. iddlng salt Lake City
sf Obnoxious LIQUOR Dealers-A City Mar.
shal Enceps the store 81 y Defendants Who
uus Net Paid His License Fees and Destroys
His stock and Appsratus-A Tess Qsessisn
- This Ceurt-6uif Asaiusr secretary Bout
slen II Payment for the service Of the state
1reops-The seste 70 Lock 20 Congress for
Relief "a In the Case or the Missouri Peti.
der.
WAshNaroN, D. c., March 9, Is7a
No S7o. Jeter Clinton OF al. Va Englebrccnt ct al
Error to the Supreme Court OF Utah Territory
action was brought 10 District Court OF the Terri
tory TO recover penalty under Territorial sratute
for the wIlful destruction Of certan liquors belong
ina to the defendants In error. They were retail
liquor dealers 10 Salt Lake City. An ordinance OF the
clty required the PAYMENT Of o license leo Tor
tho privilege OF sucn trafiic In liquors. and provided
warrant should issue directed 10 the Lity Marshal.
commanding Inc destruction OF the stock and every
tn.ng nsed ior the purpose or MANUFACTURING selling
&c. 10 TINS case warrant was Ia ued by Chnt0n,
one OF the Aldermen VI tine cIty, and the City Mar
enal entered tue place OF The defendants ana demot
Unod lts contontS. Upon the Irial the piantlns In
error demurred 10 the challenge OF the array Of the
jury, winch was overruled aud the trial ordered
Court the verdict was for the plaintIns be-
low, for. about $4,000, the value Of the
statute the party destroying was liable to pay to
me injured party. a. portion OF the penalty
done under the authority OF warrant, .'claim OF
rignt" the 01ence punishable by the statute under
That o1ence was s'malicious mlsChieE" and there
should nave been an avermenc aud proof Of the
SSesson Of ,e Legality Of Inc ary IS Also Drsssntsd
the nAme ~ IN the case Of stow, before argued.
G Hitler TOR plamtifrs In error; II. N. BasKin i0r
defendants.
No. ls2. Home Insurance Company, OF New York.
" Bosson-Error TO the Circuit Court for Missouri
the insurance company insured the defendant IN
August 1854. for the term OF three months, on
stock oil homp stored IN q warehouse ~ Glasgow,
Missouri II Delug stipulated In the policy that there
would be no nablliy for loss or damage by IRE
tnsurrection, riot or civil commotlon, or any
military or usurped power On the trial the defence
or camp followers wnile the place was held by MIL
ttary forces, commanded by the rebel General Clark,
ana THIS evidence was NOT reuutted ~ the plaintiff
Are might have been accidental taithough tue reh-
els were III possesslonh and thus raise a doubt
whether IL caused by rebel lncendlariSm not.
The jury Ruve the insured the Denen, Of me doubt,
and their verdict was Tor rne plaintin II Is here
OF evidence. To this toe reply Is rlat tns Court
does not sat to try Issues Of TACT determined by Jures
NasL Ii Carpenter for the p,aintlr In error; y. 4.
DcR l0r tue deiendahts.
Case No. Q (orignal). State Of Kentucky vs.
Secretary Boutweil-The return Of the Secretary OF
the Treasury In this takes the ground that as
the troops were called into the service by the
authority Of the President Secretary OF War, or
by an officer or the army, but by the State Of Ken
lucky and were under the officers OF the STATE and
were never attached TO the command OF any ofiicer
OF the army OF tine Unlled states, the State n NOS
entitled 70 the claim presented under the
act OF 1851, but must look to Congress
that,he question involved end the act Of 1861 have
toe ac.s OF 1852 and lo61 providing the payment
to Inc state OF MISSOURI for similar service VI her
Is that presented by the state Of KENTUCKY was was
not entitled under the act OF 1851 and required
nedea TO be the proper course 70 De taken In tins
case. II Is also obeced that under the rules OF the
Department, established by Secretary chase, the
claim cannot be paid, and It ID urged that
the present Secretary would not be JUSTIFIED
In seting aside the rules Of hs predecessors Unless
the necessity imperative rhe position Is taken that
the granting OF warrants IL NOT in the meaning Of
the ute, solely AMI exclusively mister lai act
to require, discretion anu Judgment by the head Of
the department, and 1t IS c0ntended that for thus
charge Of thus duty, to tho con,ro or direction
OF TINS Court Inc Secretary Is bound by
the act OF 1851, under whlcn the claim Is maize to
oxercL his discretion IN respect to all claims
made under It, ana, II the Court commands him To
90 other than MS judgment warrants IN the DIS
charge OF his of1ciai duties 10 the premises, such
command would take from him the discretion and
judgmen: placed IN nlin and would render 1t im-
and Intended Dy the acc, and would to the
Court the dIscnarxe OF Inc duties and the payment
OF tine claim; anu, IN MS case, WOul0 SUBJECT the
money In Tue Treasury 10 be taken therelrom by the
Judgment VI she Court
rhe original jurisdiction OF the Court to issue the
WITT Of mandamus Is Denied and protest Is en-.
tered against ito exercise.
Counsel argued tne question at lengin, the state
being represented by judge Casey and Mr. Barton,
ana the govern pv the Attorney General, AS
slstAnt Attorney General Hill and soIlcior General
bristow. the pJinEs OF law involved were stated
~ me lime Of the argument on the application for
rule TO show cause. No new briefs were fled.
Secretary Boutwell, was not present. owing to Indis
postton.