, 1873-05-26
Oounter-AAidavits in the Alleged
Jury Tamporing 0ase... -.
Conclusion Of the Notorious High
wines Suit. '"
Bankruptcy Matters:.~Tho Courts in
Brief---New Suits. ), i


Is brought, and tho amount In dispute oxcoods
tho sum Of $500; and Of tho jurisdiction Of tho
etato and Federal courts, as Affected by tho
Bankrupt act, was sottled in tho United States
Court, Of Dos Moines, 1a.,. on friday last Tho
caaos Of tho Republic Lifo insurance Company
were called Boveral days ago in that court, and
In tho case Of Payson, Aaalguoc, Y. Dieeg, tho
counsel for tho defense ma1o o motion to dis
1nisB tho caso for want Of juried1otion. This
action 1yas ono OF over 100, similar In character,
brought to rocovcr tho nmounss Of unpaid a.
scssments upon stock held by them In the
Republic Insurance Company. Judge Dillon
said thnt undor tho circumstances Of tho case,
the Jurisdiction Of tho Court plainly existed,
s1nlees It bo takon away by the proyialons Of tho
Bankruptcy act. It Is olaimed that the juriadio-
tion Of oithor tho United statoa Circuit Courts
or tho States Courts is taken away, as a necos-
sary Or implied effoot Of tho Jurisdiction which
ia conferred by tho Bankrupt act upon tho
United Ssates District Courts. It Is claimed, as
q necessary md legitimate conclusion. from tho
establishment Of bankrupt courts with p1onary
jurisdiction throughout tic States, and the pro-
scribing tho Circuit Courts certain
'that ah Jurisdiction In bankruptcy
cases should bo exclusively in tho bankruptcy
courts, oxcept 30 far as tie Bankrupt act ex-
aar;t Canr+ TI,o Co,.r+ ,,nn, tl,n haet cnna1dnra
tion he had been able to give tho view that the
District Court had exclusive uriadeion In all ac.
tiona relating to the collection Of tho assets Of
estato c4cont 4 80 far ns ooncnrrent iurisdietion
aaanyestoa IN tho oi,cuit courta N limited s
ronoinaom thst u Na ~, .on nne y s Gomr
mentioned tho following roasonR for sustaining
Tho Jurisdiction Of tho Circuit Courts in actions
uuch aa the one in question, and dismissed de-
II: This Court, whore tho juriaaiction arising
xsom clizonsnip exiss u court OF tut common Ia"
sna equity powers ~ THIS action the requisite ci
Does o1ht md the cause Of action ts not ono
o iaw soon + to enforce contract agsinst tho DE-
M u tfuo that the Asa!gneo claims title under
dor proceedings In the Probate Court but tta does not
hanSr,nc ~ properly Vowed nEocesd1ng IN
tion of tIe proper bsn1uptcy oour thsro ' was % no
th "ny IN menon nke thia should not be enforced
deemed most expedfent Essenail1 Il oes nj dor ST
from actions ii which bo elsssss Of courts constantly
toxic cognizancc, as part Of rlr original and rghtfu
3'sts<llctioa. - =.
=; Tho argument . against the Jurisdiction Of this
rsaa .. ~ a Iotse tfom tae extensive
aon i eseaye boS Of the sate Gon p9a .nd af
ahe second section Of tho act. ''' '''<' 1'A -
L Congress- had intended by tho tzst section Of the
cS 70 MAKE ~ t the ot to District Court.
nthar tae a aases and to dspryo al
&eR3F In
sed have ben o emo
the woE eseluslsa leacrlpive Of d. svsieton, is
no6 SniY not used but seem' to hA'' been ea1e15
dctton in ordinary coumon law and eau5ev sHits sjm
py because brought hy tho Assignee ii Dsnkraptey is
apropoaton that has tho support Of many well-rea
sonsd @ @aa3udicotlons made both under the bankrupt
,.d,n nd eanae m Suf1S may exarGso concurrent jas
the Has9ee @ ha conson ~
the Bankruptcy Court reaorted 10 tho for the ordl-
nary purpose Of collecting e asseta q the estate.
M Of ho State courts in certain Glasses ot
ond hc an lsst n3 a. 70 fc DS GosToe u
harty guppose Cpuaress intpndad " That a f,toto
courts should exercise ther general concurrent iurs-
detgn the assignee sh9u1 dsstre to resort to them.
3et y Ri;a hsns.1s y Implication are not favored
be tsIen aWay by ero strsttye eonfep
ring like ,arsaist,on .s upon another court
few axs since va n,bya5ad t,n 5ppn1H
of a1ioUat;cns ronta;na5 m ~ ~ 10
ties Interested in tie nlaintr side Of the caap of
Martin '. bay, which charged Baili r Of .1 judge 70
aIessrs. Don't biaeE oonSnea ns1n r. 4ho
ant n tfnt a;t ;' 1rnd"ra =; rc,,ttni
dayita Of thn bai1;Ys IN H. ~ conpt nnd ~ a'ao
Of one Of tho lurymon, tue allegations I Of
aVt 81 Jo obhp p1H!paa gg. IhH
tho cnurt seta forfE th1t In to1a+Inr t.;ti ~ n
Hill hsd oharce Of the inSy IN tha ~ cass a.
Of hartin y. Bav hut ~ 4 - nj tnS ,arta;t' taso
Whether he nd them IN IN - ehapra nus oost1I sf3or
their rotirennent to conxi5er the;r vor33ic+ daos
not remamber ts;,e ira ,mot I'VE, soaia M ueoa
room. but NAV have takon onato er . room s on. 5%as
cite Judge Trae'a co,1rt at t1o snd ~ to pea:
eago, as Is customary: don. not 1e1oamhsr F.I Fa.
ine cigars to the iury' hMt It Is onetonarv ~ d.
90 wlon tho iurymera proyide t1.o mnnsv. ~ Az ~
MOS calling out to tie Juror. Coma f t xant au
to talk to you;' did not telk to Juror annoarn.
ine tie case or eoak to inoncn tha inrx T.;
way the witnesses had no right to atan r. ronna a
the iury-roo1u; think il ia prnbahIa ha Tnnv have
ordered suoh louugcre to stand AVN. Aars A.
two iurymon, who Woro o1d aeonaintanroa 'I hut ~
denies That be drank with tic defandant Dey or
at his expense; never conyorsol With Day about
tho trial. '@'1@ -1oa. :.
n. q. Hill and John Paul, BailiDYs Of tha same
court, make aIldayits Similar IN alleaation 10 tTo
above. ''- - :" -
niss influencing tho Jury !; saws ho gpoke t. no
turyman on tho trial; may haye spoken to
Humphrey, ho being an aoauaintanco. den;oe
treating the Jury or Dalliffa during the trial:
treated the Jury nftor tho verdict: after trentinn
the Jury, ono Of them called linn aside md tol1
him that uan namo All Rrn<vn 1,,t3 oToro1 liz, n