Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1874-11-25
THE SUPREME COURT HUNG.
An Important knoxville Cnsc They
Did Not Decide.


Our readers know that an important
case Of Cowan, McClung q Co. vs. the
East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia
Railroad co. has for over year been
pending i'm the state Courts. The
plaintiffs brought fifty suits against
the railroad to recover penalty under
Section 10 Of an Act passed Nov. 23d,
1865, by the Legislature Of Tennessee.
This act appropriated to certain rail-
roads bonds to aid them i'm repairing
the ravages Of the war, aud provided
that such companies as accepted the
bonds must accept the terms and pro-
visions named in the Act, and among
them was the following, named in the
section as aforesaid;
"Bc IL enacted. etc., That any Rail-
road Company receiving aid under this
Act, etc, who shall discrimiuatein
their freight or passenger tariff against
the business of any city or town, or
place in this State, OF carry freight
lower i'm one direction than another,
or refuse to give the citizens of this
State equal facilities for transporting
their freight to or from any point they
may desire 10 ship, to or from with the
citizens of any other State, whether
this act be committed within the linn
its of this State or not, shall upOn
conviction, he fined in the sum of not
less than 81, OOO nor over 5000. for
each and CyeJV ofIense; the same to
he collected "a other fines aud forlei~
lures are collected, oup-hHlf to 20 to
the state and tue other halt 10 the par
ty aggrieved.N
The plaintiffs sue for the penalty
above named, because, a. they ullege,
in June, 1870, the defendants charged
them on 100 lbs, l.t class ON 100 lbs.
2t class on 100 lbs, 81 class and 100
lbs. An class freight from New York
to Knoxville, S25 while for the same
amount of goods they charged Nash
willie merchants, shipping from New
York 10 Nashville, s., 6Sc.
The defendant demurred to the de
clsralior, and among other grounds
for demurrer alleged Jhat the plain
titls did not set forth a sufficient cause
of action; thatif they did the act re-
ferred to was unconstitutional, and
that the suit contemplated by the act
was Il criminal and not Il civil suit.
! The case, as our readers willsee from
this statement, is one Of great interest
| to Knoxville merchants and of vital
/ importance to the railroad. 1t is to
/ the latter, perhaps the most impor-
tant suit ever brought against them.
/ The demurrer was fully argued be-
fore Judge f. II. Hall in the CiIcuit
| Court of this county last spring, and
off lttn ia la N 4 - l.,
favor of the railroad company.
The cause was argued in the Su-
preme Court the first day of the pres
ent term, on the part of the plaintiffs
| by Major II. S. Webb Messrs. Cooke
& Tighlman We're originally associated
with him in the case. The railroad
company is represented by Messrs.
| Baxter IL Son, Judge Barton and At,
| tOrney General Heiskell.
Though the court has had the case
/ for about ten weeks, it has been unable
/ to reach n decision. In the common
/ parauce of the profession, the court is
supposed to he " hung, that is even
/ ~ divided as to the decision to be rem,
dered. We suppose this is hardly the
situation, for if the judges, after full
consultation, found they could not agree
and stood three for affirming, and three
/ for reversing the Judgment of the
court below, they would so have an
nounced it. The effect of such an
announcement would be to affirm
! the decision of Judge Hall, which
was in favor of the Railroad Company
/ When the Supreme Court is evenly
| divided, 50 IS to be unable to agree,
/ the judgment of the Court below j.
affirmed.
We have no authority for saying
| how the Court stands on this impOr-
tant case, but it is pretty well under.
stood that two of the Judges have pos
/ tive opinions in favor of sustaining
the decision of Judge Hall, and have
prepared an opinion to that effect that
one of the Judges has prepared an
opinion reversing the Circuit Judge
and that the other three Judges have
not had the time to reach any definite
conclusion, and the case is therefore
held over until next September. So
that, while it may be said that the
Court haze not agreed, it can rot be
said that they can not agree, for if we
are not mistaken in our guess, three OF
them have not reached any conclusion
in the case,
It is to be regretted that the case wat
not decided. Both parties seem anx.
ious to have it decided, and the public
Join in this anxiety. 1t is likely that
the cause was argued 50 early i'm thu
term that its consideration was put of
from day to day and week to week
unit. too late to be considered at thi,
/ term of the Court.
An Important Chattanooga Lawsuit
From Knoxville Chronicle, Nov. IS,
The supreme Court yesterday deci