The New York herald., 1872-10-31
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Charges OF Intended Fraud Against
Tobacco Manufacturers-The NOn-Pay.
ment OF Taxes and Noncompliance
with tho informal Revenue Regula.

Tobacco Manufncturers-TheN Non-Pay.
ment OF Taxes and Noncompliance
with tho Internal Revenue Regula-
ti0ns.
WASHINGTON, D. c., Oct 80, 1872
Nos. 179 and 1S0-Drst vs. Morris-Error to Cir
cult Court for the Northern District Of Illinois,
This was an action of ejectment to recover certain
real estate in Illinois which had been sold in pur
suance OF bill filed by the United States to FORE
close mortgage held in the name Of the Solicitor
Of the Treasury, and which was executed by one
RUSSELL In 1887, to secure the government
against the loss Of an indebtedness Of
about ffty-ive thousand dollars. Both parties
claim title from Russell, the plaintiff, In
error, through others Of his vendees, and the de.
fendant In error claims through the title obtained
mortgage. Upon taking his title from the vendees
OF the government, defendant in error found other
parties in possession and brought this action to
OuSt them The Judgment sustained the title
derived from the government, and the writ OF error
is to reverse 1T, the argument being that as the
plalnti in error holds title under parties who pur
chased the equity OF redemption from Russell, ana
as those parties were not made defendants in the
action OF foreclosure, that proceeding was irregu-
lar, and no valid title passed to the governments.
s. w. Fuller for plaintiff In error; Carlisle and Nc
Pherson, for defendant.
No. 1888. Waterman vs.. United Stares-Error to the
Circuit Court for the Northern District offiinoisg
This was an Information filed, charging Waterman
with intending to Manufacture tobacco in fraud
Of the internal revenue laws. The verdict sus-
tained the charge and this writ Of error seeks to
reverse the Judgment rendered on the verdict, on
the ground that the evidence upon which the con-
victlon was sustained was o showing by the
government that Waterman had before been
Is contended that such evidence win nos
support the charge, although taken IN connection
" ~ the nrescn 81 e Ws
submitted on the printed points, the governments
maintaining that evidence OF similar odenccs IN
f1.a CT 10 hry1td dci h1n N
Bristowe for government; E. Roby for plaintiff IN
error.
No. 1856. Gregg vs.. Moss-Error to the Northern
District Of nlinois.-This action was brought by
Gregg as survivor Of one Kellogg who was part
ner in business with Moss, the allegation being
that Kellogg had advanced $4,000 to his partner,
which remained unpaid. The defence was that the
agent or the firm, and that it was for the protec-
loH not for Ei NC MOSS Individual Senef The dSent
sustained this theory but 1t is here alleged that
this was error IN the construction OF the facts pre-
Submitted on the printed points. o. Jackson for
plaintiff; Harding d Mccoy for defendants
No. 1877. Erskne VS.. Hohnbach-Error TO tne
Circuit Court for the Eastern district Of Wiscon
sin-Ths was an action Of trespass, brought by the
defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, as
collector Of internal revenue, for the alleged
wrongful seizure of tobacco belonging to him, on
charge OF attempting to defraud the government
OF revenues. The defence was that the defendant
had been guilty OF n0n-payment OF taxes, &c. The
reply alleged that the taxes claimed were not
chargeable and that he had been guilty OF no de-
ceptiOn or fraud The verdict was for the claimant,
and the Collector here contends that treSspass will
not lie in such case, and that the OF the de-
fendant in error fails because he did not allege In
his replication that an appeal was made to the
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue to abate the
assessed and alleged to be illegal. G. II. Hill,
Assistant Attorney General, for Collector Smith
and St0rk for defendant.
No. 1873. United States vs. Powell and Heide-
brand and others.-Error to the Circuit Court for
the Middle District OF Tennessee.-Th was an
action Of debt brought by the government against
the defendants in error as principals and sureties
on two distillers' bonds, given under the seventh
section OF the Internal Revenue law Of 1885, one Of
which bore date 18th OF December, 1885, and the
other or the Goth OF April, 1869. BY proviso to
Joint resolution, passed March 90, 1869, a internal
revenue bonded warehouses are bound to reim-
burse the government the expenses and
salaries OF storekeepers and other things In charge
OF such warehouses. These actions were
to enforce payment OF salaries OF store
keepers in the warehouses OF Powell & Hide
brand. The defence was that at the time the bonds
were executed such expenses were not chargeabIe
TO the warehousemen. The Court sustained the
The government claims here that such bonds, by
the decision OF the courts contemplate the faithful
performance OF any duty which may be by law im-
posed upon the officer after the date Of his bond;
and reversal is asked on this ground. b. H. Bris-
tOWe for government. defendants not appcOriuQ.