National Republican., 1873-05-27
TILE COURTs.
surrrmn c.urt-aeneraI Term.

supreme Court-3encrai Tern.
hlefJustlce Cartier and Justices wylle, Olin
and Macarthur sat 10 bane yesterday, and were
Brown vs.. McMufray. This case was argued
By Mr.. stanton and Mr.. Cox, and submitted.
AcAsE oF tSIERHsT.
Leach ct al. Va. Lewis. This Is an action on an
Of draft Of 500, drawn on him by rilden, Han
plaintiffs. The defence is Il that % lhe acceptance
was accommodation paper; that this was made
known to the plaintiffs when they took the draft
that was passed 70 them simply as cGatss ,as ,ssi
reason was negotiated out Of the usual course Of
business and without consideration. u was re-
fered TO Mr, Cox, who reports: u the accept
ance was delivered simply as security for an ex-
isting debt, without any new consideration as
forbearance, &c., II would be without considers
tion, and the transaction, according 10 the weight
the usual course OF business, but It clearly ap-
pears from the testimony for the ieientant him
self that the plaintiffs, to whom Tilaen. Hall
agreed to furnish additional goods in considers
tion OF the receipt OF this acceptance security
for existing and future Indebtedness, and In fact
Il was therefore clearly negotiation for value
and In the usual course OF business. The fact OF
| the acceptance being accommodation paper does
Vv Mas sneen e n ~ cTnn, eb,se, 10 IN, an,e1S.
ed with the knowledge Of the indorsces. The
evidence only is this that Mr. Lewis expected
the drawers 10 take up the acceptance, and they
promised to do It, and 50 informed the plaintiffs.
| This did not amount TO . amisappropriation Of the
note but simply a failure OF the drawers to meet
their engagements with the defendant.
am therefore OF opinion, and so award, thai
the plaintiffs are entitled to Judgment for 800
the amount OF the acceptance, with interest from
January u, 1871, the date OF lis maturity, and
costs OF protest.
To this award the exceptions arc as follows
1. For that the nrst OF the conclusions Of Law
contained in said report Is erroneous; :. Fol
that the second OF the conclusions OF law con
tained IL the said report Is erroneous; 3, 70
whereas II should have been In favor Of the de
fendant Z. For that the report IN attempting
to give an abstract OF the evidence omits man!
Inc case came up before his Honor, chief Jus
tlce Cartier, holding the Circuit Court, on mo
tlon for judgment on award, and was certified u
Mr.. wiswal opened the case, but the srgu
, ment wa not concluded when the court ad
jouned.
Special Tern-JHdEe wyIIe.
This court made the following orders ycster
day: Davis ct al. vs.. Davis ct al; decree cou
nrnng trustees sale and Of reference TO audi
tor. IN N. estate OF James Y. Essex; decree con
nrming proceedings Of probate Jurisdiction
Humes vs.. Humes decree for sale OF parts U
lots % aud %, In square $50. Several lnterlOcu
tory orders were made.
Circuit Ceurt-Jadge uumphrey-.
. This court was engaged Yesterday in the hear
Ing OF small appeal cases. The trial OF the req
! ular calendar will begin on wednesday next.
Police Ceurt-Iudge Smell.
D. Jackson, colured, lfrceny OF a quantity {
lumber valued at o., the property OF the Dstrit
OF Columbia; go and costs. John Reuter-, a.
sault and battery on John l.. Jones; SO and cost
! James NJ, Keatinr, threats OF violence TO job
Keating, his father; 500 bonds to keep the peac,
n Vim. Edmonston and James Jones, charged wit
: an ARRAY; f5 each.