The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-17
He COURTS.
The Madame Jumel Estate-Alleged Violation Of
the Internal Revenue Law-Amault On
Revenue Oficer-B Business in tho
Court Of General Sessions
UNITED STATES SUPREME cous1.

Novel Objections 70 Verdict In Mlssouri-A
Juror Having Confederate Views and De-
sire that the south May Gain Her Point
Refused to Take the Ordinary Oath-A
Case in Admiralty.
WASHINGTON. D. G., Feb. 10, 1879.
No. lo6. Max Kingien vs. The State OF Missouri
Error to the Supreme Court OF MlssourL-At the
September term Of the Criminal Court Of st. Louis
county IN 1869 the plaintiff In error was put upon
his trial for the murder OF Weldon and upon the
administering OF the test oath prescribed by the new
constitution OF Missouri one OF the jurors declined
to take 1t. informing the Court that during the
late rebellion he was a sympathizer with the Con-
federate cause. and earnestly desired Its success;
that such we're his sentiments then: that ne thinks
IN e s s d was a' w nj M
Southern use; ana tor these he could not
take the prOlfered oath. The counsel for the
unconstitutional by this Court in the case OF Cum
0s ssu w WA EN- ana for tnas e arar
ana 001 rane o' that f Park had been re-
heved Of any and all Ofences enumerated In this
clause OF the constitution by the proclamation OF
amnesty ana pardon issued Dy the President De-
cember 25 1865, and was thereby restored 10 all his
rights and privileges % citizen OF the Cnfted
discharged and the plaintir found guilty. The
Supreme Court OF the State affirmed the conviction.
u here conten1ed, as 1t was below that the Presi.
dens's proclamation or amnesty was a lull and
complete pardon Tor oil the acts specified In
the state constitution, and relieved the excluded
Juror from all guilt and restored him to all his
rights as citizen. The exclusion Of the juror be-
cause he refused to take the test oath was not a
SUFFICIENT cause In law, under the decisions OF this
Court. and was violation OF the nth, sixth ana
fourteenth articles OF the constitution OF the United
States and infringement OF the right OF trial by
Jury. w. II. II. Russell and George Taylor for the
plaintiff IN error, the State not appearing IN Court.
No. 120. Norcross ct al. Vs. The Steamboat
Laura.-1his was suit in admiralty In rem. and
la perSonana, the claim being for damages alleged
to have been suffered by the bellants as owners OF
the steamboat W. B. Savoy, which, It was alleged
was sunk by the Laura. The defence was, that the
Laura had taken the passengers and crew Of the
Savoy from her when she was in sinking condi-
tion. at the request OF her master. who said Save
the passengers and and lei tue boat
60 DOWN. aud that afterwards, she Deing
abandoned an attempt was made to tow the Savoy
10 swallow water during whicn time she was can.
sized, and sunk by the sea water In her hold. The
proof showed that the master OF me Savoy went for
assistance after being landed, and was Intending to
return with tow to rescue his craft; and on this
showing the District Court held that there was
abandonment, ami the decree was Tor the llb4uants.
On appeal to tue Circuit Court was there held tnaC
there was an abandonment or the SAVOY by this mas
trespass, and the decree was reversed. From this
decree this appeal Is TAKEN and IL Is commended that
ON the acts proven the court erred In reversing the
decree OF the District Court j. Ii. Ashton for ap.
pelant, I. J. Durant tor appellee
No. 107.-City OF Lexington VS.. Butler-Err0r to
the Circuit Court for the District OF Kentucky
This was an action TO recover certain corpora.
ton bonds issued by the ciGy OF Lexington In aid
Of the construction Of the Big sandy Railroad The
defence was that the subscription was made by the
city on certain conditions, which were not COM
piled with by the railroad company,
and that therefore the bonds were void.
The Court held that this was no
defence to an action Dy an innocent holder and the
Judgment was accordingly. 1t IS mere maintained.
as II was below, that the bonds were transferred TO
Butler alter process served in the acGlOn, and
that the rule VI Us pendeS must apply In which case,
Butler having notice under this rule, there DO
no recovery. j. f. Fisk or plalnti In eIrOr Steven
son Myers for defendant.