National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1873-01-21
THE COURTS.

practice as an attorney and counselor OF thls
on motion OF Mr.. T. J. Durant, QulntOn Cor
wine ESQ.,, Of Cincinnati Ohio, was admitted to
practice as an attorney and counselor OF THIS
On motion Of Mr.. X. T. Merrick, James q.
PAYNE esq, of Washington, D. e., was admitted
to practice as an attorney and counselor 81 this
court. -
No. 50. The Washington and Georgetown Rail.
road Company, plaintiff In error, vs.. Oliver
ciladmon, BY his next friend, y. X. Gladmon. In
error TO the Supreme Court OF the District OF
Columbia. Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opln-
ion Of the court, Affirming the Judgment OF the
said Supreme Court, with costs and interest.
ANOTHER.
No. o.. The National Bank Of tho Metropolis,
plaintiff In error, vs.. James G.. Kennedy, re.
ceiyer, 6c, In error to the Supreme Court OF
the District Of Columbia. Mr.. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion Of the court, affirming the
cause, with costs aud interest.
No. %. VIM. Dickinson, executor, Ac., plaintin
In error, vs.. The Planters Bank Of Tennessee.
In error to the Circuit Court Of the United states
for the Middle district Of Tennessee. Mr.. jus
tice strong delivered the opinion o. the court,
afiirfnlng the Judgment OF the said circuit court
No, o2' The Commercial Bank OF Rochester,
plaintiff in error, vs.. The CITY o. Rochester; IN
error to the supreme Court OF the state OF New |
YORK. Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion |
Of the court, dsmisslng the writ OF error In this
cause for the want Of Jurisdiction.
| No. o. John y. Williams, collector, &C., plain.
tin In errnr Va. VIM. r. Reynolds, agent and
trustee. In error to the Circuit Court OF me !
| United states for the district Of Indiana. Mr. |
| Justice clifford delivered the opinion Of the |
court, reversing the Judgment OF the saih circuit
Court, and Remaining the cause, with directions
TO dismiss the suit for the want Ut Jurisdiction.
| No, s. Charles q. Scott ct al, plaintiffs In er-
rOr vs. John Eaton ct nj. In error 70 the supreme
Court Of the state Of Arkansas. Mr. chief Jus
tIre Chase delivered the opinion ~ the court, AZ
| nming the judgment Of the said supreme Court |
| in this cause with costs, interest and ten per
M. - The Portland Company, appellant, vs. !
| The United states. Appeal from the Court OF
| Claims. Mr. Chief Justice Chase announced the
| decision OF the court discussing the appeal In
| this cause and remarked: From time to time
| the court has adopted rules Of practice intended
to facilitate the presentation Of causes ny cnun-
| sci and their consideration by the court. Find.
ing that these rules, through the lnattentOn OF
the bar had failed In great degree OF their ln-
tended effect, we promulgated a. the last term,
| and for the same end, an amended twenty.tlrst
rule, the fourth section Of which required mat
The brief should contain In the order there stated
| First concise abstract or statement pre-
senttng succinctly the questions Involved and the
manner in which they are raised.
Second. An assignment Of the error relied
up1n setting out In cases brought up by wit OF
error, separately and specifically, each error a.
serted and intended to be urged, and In cases
brought up by appeal, as speclhIaly as may pe,
the error alleged to exist IN the decree; or II the
error be alleged IN u ruling upon the report OF
master stating the exception TO the report and
the action Of the court upon u.
Third, brief Of the argumenv exhibiting u
clear statement OF the points Of law or fact To
he discussed with q reference 10 the pages OF
the record and authorities relied upon ~ support
OF each point, and containing. when statute OF
| a state Il cited, so much thereof ~ lnAy he
deemed necessary To the decision oil the case
The MIN section OF the rule also required that
when the error alleged ~ TO the charge OF the
court, the specification shall set out the part re-
fcrreA to totidfm reTbis, whether II be instruc-
lions Civ en- or Instructions refused.
And the sixth section required that when the
error alleged Is to the admission or rejection OF
| tu.saf tnn hall ha
substance OF the evidence admitted or rejected.
, The necessity Of strict compliance with these
rules, especially In view OF me grea'iy anghented
tate as much the lRbOrs OF the bar as those OF
the bench. That counsel might have full notice
OF the bill It was required To take effect on the
frSt day Of the present month Of January, aal
the clerk was directed to have printed copies
l made OF the rule as amended and send one copy
to each Of the counsel IN All cases ncndlng anu
In the ease before US this rule has been totally
: dlsTegardcd on the part Of the appellant.
l We shall, therefore, In this case, dismiss the
$ 10. 2o1. Emile Marquee ct al, plaintiff in
: error, vs.. Bloom, Kahn b Co., IN error to inc
G supreme Court OF the State OF Louisiana. Mr..
chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion OF the
court, Diminishing the writ OF error In this cause
for the want OF Jurisdiction,
: No. 100. George W. Brown, appellant, vs.. kutus
4 No, lOj George W. Brown, appellant, vs.. james
Shelby, ct al. The argument Ol these causes was
-
a No. IOI. william smith, plaintiff in error, vs..
James NJ. Adsit, ct al, This cause was submitted
on printed arguments by Mr. W. T. Burgess, OF
counsel for the plaintiff In error, aud by Nj
George Payson for the defendants IN error.
Il No. los. The United States, plaintln, vs.. {. w
stafford. This cause was argued by Mr.. Solicitor
General Phillips OF counsel for the plaintiff. Nj
counsel appearing for the defendant.
Adjourned until tomorrow at II O'Clock.
h Supreme Court-Genrrnl Term.
RaIaaH 81
hearing OF appeal cases.
bowling vs.. Bowling. Appeal In n divorce
case. Argued by Messrs. Bradley, IT,, and bar
LHcks vs.. Jones. Motion to dismiss hlcl.
LanCk vs.. simmons. Appeal dismissed On The
Is motion Of Gen. Darlington. So,
y Leary and David keppel, defendants. THIS cast
le comes up upon an appeal from special term.
Dennis Long and wiie brought Their OiIl Sga,n ms
G confined In jail IN 1861 for assault and battery
4 aud that Paul Leary the defendant, called upoT
H. said Long and offered To 20 his ball for hts ap
pearance at court, provided that Long would In
Df lemnify him by executing the derd OF trust
y mentioned IN the proceedings ami that u wa
OF executed solely 10 indemnify Leary against loss
to &C.; and that he Long could neither read no
A. write, and did not understand the character o
!; the paper &c.; and that he did not Know that n,
" was agreeing to pay $500, or any other sum
ls &c.; and that there have been no pecnnlar,
"a, transactions between them, and that he IL no
y, indebted TO LeaTy In the sum Of $780, or any par
=
In the sum Of sos for money loaned, No., a
different .tlmes, and that said deed o
trust was made while he was unde
10 duress and not In physical or mental condition
1l TO make contract, Ic,; and was deceived In re
m gard to the character and object Of the said dee
or OF trust by the false, deceptive and fraudnlen
a representations OF Lcary, (see Till, p. ~ and tina
In said property was purchased IN great mcasur
~ with the separate means uf his wife aud &C
MI plaintiff and that she ignorant Of the trans
d. action, and that Leary studiOusly avoided he
be receiving any notice thereof; aud that MS wi
n was more Intelligent, and in the habit OF trans
acting his business, Sc., and that Leary, we
knowing that. and with the fraudulent design U
getting hold Of said property, obtained said dee
s ss he does not recoect whether he signed tn
a. notes mentioned In the deed NJ trust not, an
p that II he did they are fraudulent, &c. lsee bill
" p. o.
Nv And the bill prays that said deed OF trust an
~ notes may he set aside and declared void &c
he and for general relief.
d. tux ANSWER
n Paul LeaTy, In his answer, says that he neye
m called upon Dennis Long In jail AMI offered I
-" become his bail, and that he was moved to bt
come his bail by reason OF the fact that Lon
was his brother-in-law, aud that he had no col
m. versatiOn with Long IN jail or elsewhere betor
10 he became his bail, and that he had not hi
n, for six months before he went To the Jail wit
All his discharge, and denies that said notes or dee
1If were given In consideration Of Learys beconlln
n his bail, and AYERS that said notes were give
A. bJHd fde, and for $3.50 cash loaned by him I
al Long, and for So expended by him on Long
~ house, and that the deed OF trust was give
~ three or four weeks after Longs releas
no from jail, and had no connection thercwitl
NV (SOs.b and 81 and denies being indebted to Lon
IN the sum OF t95, or that he ever received an
money from him, Sc., or that he ever charged {
expected to receive any com pensatOn from Lon
for becoming his bail, or that the notes or dee
Of trust were given while Long was under ii
Tess, or that he used false, deceptive or frnud'
lent means to obtain the same, and that Lon
was fully aware OF the character and object ,
the said transactions, (see answer Nos. and s
and denies that he "studiOusy avoided Ellie
10 LeaTy's receiving notice Ot said Transaction an
AYERS that the reason she was not party wi
that he was Informed by Long that his wife VI
dead, and that he UeaTy) not having seen
heard Of her for some time believed she was doa
I'd The court below (Mr. Justice humphrey Il
~, clared the notes null aud void. An appeal vi
'u- taken.
IT, After argument the court decided to ailim u
lag decree below. Adjourned,
he
Hy Police COurt-JudEe smell.