The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-11-09
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

A Suit TO Eject o LIN ndlord After Hold
Ing Land In Missouri Since 1s39-The
DistiIlery Question Again Brought
Forward-Are Distilleries Liable To
BE Taxed to Eighty Per Cent OF Their
Producing Capacity, and Are DfstiiIers'
suretics Liable ON the Bonds for
Default In Payment OF Warehouse
Charges:
WASHINGTON, Nov. s, 1872.
No. 206. Hedrick VS.. Hughes.-Error to the
Circuit Court for the District Of Observation-Disclosures
brought an action Of ejectment against Hughes
to recover possession Of quarter section Of land
in Howard county, Missouri The suit was COM
menced in 1870, the plaintin claiming title under
the act Of Congress of July, 1862, donating public
may provide colleges for the benefit OF agriculture
and the mechanical arts, certain OF the lands thus
donated having been located in conflict with
from the United States, dated in 1928, and snbse.
guent transfers to different parties, and finally 10
Hughes, who had been in possession since 1889 and
had improved the premises and Increased their
value to $4,000. The Judgment was for the defend
ant, the Court holding that his long and undis-
turbed possession. without regard to the other
facts in the case, was bar to the suit. 1t is here
commended that the only question is one Of priority
Of title, and that the possession is no bar. Blair
and Dick for plaintiff in error; 7. T. Gautt for de-
iendant. a0
No. 21s. Brown vs.. jolly Cashier-Error to the
Supreme Court Of the District OF Columbia This
was an action on promissory notes executed by
Brown and endorsed by the payees to Jolly.
cashier OF the Richland National Bank OF Ohio.
Two OF the notes were discounted by the bank ana
held BY it, and the other was there deposited for
collection, belonging TO the payee. Upon these
facts the Court instructed the Jury that
Jolly, WHO sued Tor the bank and for
the other payee, was entitled TO recover.
strnctions, and IL is here contended on behalf
OF the plaintiff In error that the endorsec OF a
note, not being the actual owner OF the fund.- can
not MAINTAIN suit in his own name, and hence that
jolly could not recover upon the notes in question
The defendant In error submits that the question
involved s well settled adversely to the plaintiff in
error, and that this writ of error is presented
solely for delay, and insists that the Court shoud
ages. j. ii. Ashton and N Wilson for plaintir in
error; i. I. Stanton and I. w. BARLEY for de.
iendant.
Nos. 80 and go United States vs.. Singer and
others ana same vs.. Van Buskrk Error to the
Circuit Court ior the District OF nlinois.-rhese
are actions on distillers' bonds, similar to United
States vs.. Powell. recently argued and reported
and the questions First are distillers liable
to be taxed for quantity Of spirits equal TO eighty
per cent OF the producing capacity of their disti
leries, whether the amount actually manufactured
equals that quantity or not and second, are dis.
tillers and their suIetes liable on their bonds for
default In payment OF warehouse storekeeners,
wages before the execution OF the bond upon
which the government sues The Court below de-
cided these questions for the defendants in erroy
and the government appeals, maintaining that the
tax on manufactures is laid in a just inanner--the
same as upon billiard saloon keepers in accordance
with the number OF tables they Keep and UPON
hotel-keepers, upon the amount OF rent &C. they
pay, without regard to their actual business, and
that the act Is specific IN that respect; and that
the language OF the Joint resolution OF March, 1862
makes II clear that the suretes are liable, as
claimed for dues owed prior to the execution of the
bonds. G. II. Hill for the government; i. Roby
and Monroe Bisbee for defendants.
No. 22l. United States VS.. Hunt-Appeal from
the Court OF Clalms.-The question In this case is
whether a brigadier general OF volunteers Is en-
titled to Communication pay under the third section OF
the act OF March g. 1885, which gave an increase from
thirty to fifty cents per ration, expressly providing
that the increase should not apply to oicers above
the rank OF brevet brigadier general The defend
ant here was brigadier general, ana sought to
obtain the increased communication. Tue raw De.