The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1874-11-25
THE SUPREME COURT HUNG,
An Important Knoxville Case
They Did Not Decide.
From the Knoxville Chronicle, 18th.

| 00OA St0 ANaAiOAA SOLn npaA1s mas AOI
over year been pending in the
State Courts. The plaintiffs brought
fifty suits against the railroad to re-
cover a penalty under Section 10 of
an Act passed November Esd. 1865,
by the Legislature of Tennessee.
This act appropriated to certain rail-
roads bonds to aid them in repairing
the ravages of the war, and provided
that such companies as accepted the
bonds must accept the terms and
provisions named in the Act, and
among them was the following,
named in the section aforesaid:
'sBe 1T enacted, etc., That any Rail-
road Company receiving aid under
this Act, ETC., who shall discriminate
in their freight or passenger tariff
against the business of any city or
town, or place in this State. or carry
freight lower in one direction than
another, or refuse to give the citi-
zens of this State equal facilities for
transporting their freight to or from
any point they may desire to
ship, to or from with the citizens of
any other State. whether this act be
committed within the limits of this
State or not, shall upon conviction,
| be fined in the sum of not less than
| $1,000. nor over So, 900, for each and
erery offense the same to be collect
ed as other fines and forfeitures are
collected, one-half to go to the State
and the other half to the party ag-
| grieved."
The plaintiffs sue for the penalty
above named, because, as they al
lege, in June, 1870, the defendants
charged them on 100 lbs, 1st class !;
on 100 lbs, I'd class on 100 lbs, Sd
class; and 100 lbs, 4th class freight
from New York to Knoxville, $25,
while for the same amount of goods
they charged Nashville merchants,
shipping from New York to Nash
vile, $5, &c.
The defendant demurred to the
declaration. .and among other grounds
for demurrer alleged that the plain
| tiffs did not set forth a sufficient
cause of action that if they did the
act referred to was unconstitutional.
and that the suit contemplated by
the act was a criminal and not q
civil suit.
The case, as our readers will see
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
important suit ever brought against
them.
The demurrer was fully argued be-
fore Judge f. T. Hall in the Circuit
Court of this county last spring, and
after due consideration he decided
in favor of the railroad company.
The cause was argued in the Su-
preme Court the first day of the
present term. on the part of the
plaintiffs by Major T. S. Webb.
Messrs, Cooke and Tighlman were
originally associated with him in the
case. The railroad company is rep
resented by Messrs. Baxter & Son,
I Judge Barton and Attorney General
Heiskell.
Though the court has had the case
for about ten weeks, it has been un-
able to reach a decision. In the
common parlance of the profession,
the court is supposed to be chung !"
that is evenly divided as to the de-
cision to be rendered. 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 revers-
ing the judgment of the court below,
they would SO have announced 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, so
as to be unable to agree. the judg-
ment of the Court below is affirmed.
We have no authority for saying
how the Court stands OH this impor.
tant case, but it is pretty we'll under.
stood that two of the Judges have
positive opinions in favor of sustain.
ing 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 ii
may be said that the Court haze moi
agreed, it can not be said that they
can not agree, for if we are not mis-
taken in our guess, three of them
have not reached any conclusion in
the case.
1t is to be regretted that the case
was not decided. Both parties seen
anxious to have it decided, and the
public join in this anxiety. It is
likely that the cause was argued sc
early in the term that it's considera
ton was put off from day to day and
week to week. until too late to be
considered at this term of the Court
These dead locks on the bencI
don't look Judicial like to us, anG
that is why we repeat, what we sale
months ago, that to settle what i:
law, depends in all probability or
the death of one of our preeent
Court. It is very much to be re
gretted that a question of so mucE
importance, is to be decided by luck
if the law has failed, 1t is melan
choly to think that so important Law
is now depending on the brittlv
thread of life which holds together
all that is mortal OF one of the Su
preme Judges.
A revolver-The earth.
=,