National Republican., 1873-02-03
rurr,mc conr,-nrncrnI Term.

supreme Court-General Term.
All the justices sat IN bdna on saturday, and
were occupied as follows
CONSULAR QUESTION.
ThOs, NJ. Hanson vs.. J. +. GOwen, Joseph b,
Stewart et al, This case turns on the validity Of
The deed OF trust in question IN this case bears
date the 9Th OF August, 1881, and was executed
by John X. Gowen, citizen Of Massachusetts,
sian empire, before J. X. Perkins, acting vice
consul at Odessa.
one stephen Ralii was, at the tins the acknowf.'
edRment WAS taken, vice consul OF the United
States at odessa, but had left that place and
turned over the archives Of tho consulate to
James Perkins, his clerk, and reported the fact
ISL. ia' D'P'''"' VI ''''' On '"0 u" VI 'O"'
T. e. smith was subsequently appointed con-
sui at Odessa, and entered upon his duties on
the s0th Of September, 1851, and Perkins on that
Smith.
Perkins has since that time been appointed
vice consul At Odessa.
Messrs. Carnsi, johnson, and Merrick, for
complainant contended that James Perkins was
not authorized by law to take the acknowledg-
ment Of deed At the date Of the acknowledg-
ment Of the deed from Gowen TO FAINT.
Tue act Of Congress states specifically what
oficen may take acknowledgment, and denies
any other ofcers; for L expressly declares that
"none others than these specifically described
shall possess these powers. James Perkins, at
the time OF the acknowledgment In question, was
simply the custodian Of the archives OF the con-
sulate, and that fact had been reported to the
department by stephen Rail-, the vice consul.
He had not been nominated as vice consul by the
principal consular ofiicer;" and, OF course, no
such nomination could therefore have been sub
mltted for the approval Of the Minister to Rus
sla, as required by the consular regulations. He
was subsequently nominated as vice consul In
December, ls6i, by Mr.. smith, when he entered
upon his duties as consul ut Odessa, and APP
pointed by the Secretary Of State. There was,
therefore, no subsequent appointment which,
by construction, could date back to period an
terror 10 the date Of the acknowledgment In
question. The deed from Gowen to FAINT, not
having been properly acknowledged according
TO law, was not entitled TO he admitted to record,
and its registration does not affect subsequent
bona Gds purchasers with constructive notice.
Mr.. u. L. Stanton, for the defendants, took
grounds ~ fOllows; Tue certificate Of acknowl-
edgment appended TO the deed Of trust, of which
Wells is the beneficiary, Is valid In law. II the
acknowledgment had been taken within the
United States, before notary public, II would
have been authorized by enactment Of Congress.
Any act which by law Of Congress might be done
by notary, could also be performed by a consul
lar oficer. James Perkins, who took the ac-
knowledgment, was a duly authorized consular
otlicer Of the United States. The mode of Ap-
pointment OF consular Officers Is nNed by the
regulations prescribed, pursuant TO act OF Con-
gress, by the President; and the authorization Of
Perkins conformed to these regulations. The
court held the case under adyisement.
Police Court-Judze smell.
The cases In this court on saturday were Of an