The New York herald., 1872-12-13

nom the Court OF Caims-The claimant con-
tfacted 10 furnish 10000 guns for equipments as
per sample. subsequently the War Department
established commission "te audit and adjust all
eontraets, orders aud ciaims'' on that department
In respect to ordnance, arms and ammunition.
The contract OF the claimant sent to the com
mission, and thereafter thc government refused TO
receive further arms In accordance with its terms
Upon an adjustment by the Claims Commission as
to the guns received Saith was allowed hut Sl6
instead of $50 per gun. which he received anu
receipted f0r The claim in Court was for the
contracJ price OF the arms delivered and tor
damages for breach OF contract as To those not
delivered. The Court found that as matter OF fact
that the proposition to reduce the price OF those
delivered came nom the claimant himself, and
that he promised to release the government irom
any claim as 10 the balance to be delivered under
the contract II the money OF the reduced rates was
paid. The Judgment was or the government, aud
IL IL here CLAIMED that the Secretary OF War had no
power to establish such commission, and that It's
compromises are not binding James Huees tor
appellant, g. n. Williams and NJ. McAichael for the
government
No 4S5. Hatehings vs. Low. Governor, CT al
Error TO the circuit Court for Cahfornia-ln June,
1864. Congress granted the Yosemite Valley to the
State Of California, to be held and improved by tile
State az public reservation. Prior to this grant
Hutchings settled upon a tract in the valley en-
bracing the particular premises In question.
intending to purchase under the presumption Laws.
The Court below hclu that the settlement on the
.y te ~ o S o9s ae ts as
II had aone and the Judgment was for the State.
The writ OF error maintains that Congress, In
granting the valley 70 the state, could not divcst
the right Of Hitchings under the Presumption
laws: and 1t II said that IL the government Ia
with ali the requirements and paid for his land so
II is bound to protect him at every stage towards
the procuring OF his title. The condition OF final
payment u no more vital or sacred either 70 the
settler or the government than any Of those which
precede IT.. George W. Julian for plaintif In errors
Il. l.. Goold for defendants.
NJ as MI A.
peal from the Court OF Claims.--The claimant sued
to recover on certain quartermasters' vouchers,
copies Of which We're appended to the petition The
Court found that the vouchers were regular in all
respects, establishing priHsG rrcie case against
the government. The defence was that RUSSELL
Majors and Wadden were indebted to the United
States, and were insolvent and had made an as
oa their 70 the appellants IN trust
had sold portion OF this property to the govern
ment In payment OF which the vouchers sued for
were issued, and that the United States being
ment for the beneht OF creditors under the provIs
the vouchers the Indebtedness OF Russell, Majors
d Waddell to the government. The Court sus-
tanned the defence, and 1t Is here urged that the
unliquidated claim Of the governments against the
frm-a claim that had never Decn established nor
prosecuted to judgment against the nsolvents--
could not be made valid seton against the vOuch
ers in this case. James Hughes for appellants G.
H. Williams and Morton McMchaet for govern
ment.
No. 523 United States VS.. Smoot, and No. 524
SmOOt vs. United States--Appeal and Cross
Appeal from the Court of Clafms.-Smoot recovered
judgment against the government for 100000 in
the Court Of Claims for an alleged breach Of con-
tract In refusing to accept OF 1000 cavalry horses
which, by special con tract, he was to furnish IN
Chicago in 1884 and failed to recover on
another contract for the delivery of 1850
horses at st. Louis. From the Judgment
OF recovery the government appeals, and from
the latter Judgment the claimant appeals, the gov
ernment claiming that the horses were never
offered for inspection under new rules promulgated
for that purpose and the claimant contcndng that
the new rules having been established after the
making Of the contract, did not apply to him and
were not conclusive as against his demand. b. +.
Butler and James Hughes for claimant; G. II. Will
liams and C. II. Hill for government.