National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-10-14
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.

STATES.
TUESDAY, October 10, 1874.
On motion Of Mr.. Attorney General Williams,
Benjamin S. Brooks, esq, Of San Francisco, Cal,
was admitted to practice as an attorney and eouh-
selor Of this court.
Pomeroy and Merrett E. Sawyer, esqs., Of New
York city, were admitted 10 practice as attorneys
and eounselOrs Of this court
LIE Claire ct al. Appeal fron the Circuit Court
of the United States for the District Of Iowa On
that the appeal In this cause be dOcketed Aad dis
missed, with costs.
No. -. Derby Goal Company plainttn n error,
vs. R. F. Glow. On motion Of Mr.. r. NJ CorWtAe,
dismissed per stipulation on file.
: No. 362 Tne Commonwealth National Bank,
m nRRsi5a9 81 MI. R. N UorWins, dismissed, with
No. I. Geo. E. Kelly VS.. City Of Providence.
No. 5. John r. Smith, plaintiff In error, vs..
United States Continued on motion OF Attorney
". s. Oity of New Orleans, appellant, VS.. New
York Mail Steamshtp Company. This cause was
argued by Mr.. w H. Peekham, Of counsel ier
the appellant, and by Mr.. James Emott for the
10. 8. william H. Gaines ct al, plaintiffs in
error. VS.. John @. Hale ct al. Passed;
No I Andrew Hamilton ct al, plaintiffs in En-
ror, VS. ]. R. DilIen. Passed until Monday next,
~i No ., WIN. .. McComb, surviving executor,
plaiptif in error, vs.. Commissioners Of KnSx
county. dismissed under nineteenth rule.
NO, 10. L. hdAOSLuAu CT IL oAAOA1
vs. Isaih Silove-, sc. Dismissed, with costs.
No. M, Samuel McClelland ct al, appellants,
VS.. The United States. Passed to be agued with
No, u. B. F. Randolph, appellant, vs. Z. F.
Howard, administrator. Dismissed, with costs,
No Is. Cornelius Cadle, jr., plaintiff in error,
VS.. George Baker 20. Passed until Thursday
next. "
CRIMINAL COURT-3IR. JUSTICE HUM
This court was engaged as follows yesterday:
]. A. .Shafer, larceny, was convicted and SEN
fenced to three years in the PenitentiaTy
Cook addressed the court from his seat, and in q
manner which Mr.. Justice Humphreys considered
in derogation Of the deeorum due the court. He
ordered the clerk to assess tne Of $50 against
VIM. Sheldon, indicted for an attempt at rape
on Ellen Ringgold, at Mr.. Campbell's woodward,
on N street, between Fourth and Fifth streets,
was called.
Mr. Cook. Under the circumstances cannot
The Court. have assigned you for this case
and continued It for that purpose, and shall ex-
MI Cook. Ny convictions Of duty will not allow
me to do it. Mr.. Brown may go on with it If he
Mr. Brown proceeded with the case, and Shell
don was acquitted.
The case of ], Delphy, for larceny, was then
taken up, but not concluded. Adjourned.
SUPREME COURT-GENERAL TERM.
Chief Justice Cartier, and Justices Wylio, Olin
and Macarthur sat in bGnc yesterday.
Samuel Ford and Charles H. Holden vs.. Daniel
Smith. The bill in this case was Med to enforce
a vendors lien upon q certain lot Of land sold by
the cOmplainants to the defendant, and to have
an account taken Of the amount due on the house.
The bill was dismissed, and the complainants ap-
pealed. Thecase made by the compliments was
this Ford and Holden, the complainants, were
partners engaged in erecting two blocks OF houses
for sale one on Second street east, and one on
Eleventh street west. Holden was also engaged
in building on his own account. Smith was a
dealer in sash, doors, blinds and trimmings for
buildings. Ford & Holden, as partners. and also
Holden for himself had been dealing with Smith,
and were indebted to him, according to his own
accounts-the firm in the sum ofabOut g, 100, and
Holden in the sum Of about s., 800. Holden offered
to sell Smith one Of Ford & Holden's houses yet
incomplete and to complete il, and to takeOut the
price In lumber and materials, and also, the de-
PENDANT (Smith) says, to set on both Ford Il Hold
ems bill and Holden's private bills The com;
plainants say that only the bill Of the hrm, and
not Holdens private bill, to be taken into the
price. Whether the defendant shall set on Hold
EMS bill, and If so, whether he shall charge the
materials bought by Holden after the sale Of the
house, is the question in issue. Both Ford &
Holden, and Holden individually, continued to
their bills Jointly amounted to the price, when
Smith refused to furnish any more material Ford
Holden did not fully complete the house, and
thereof against Ford & Holden. This, 1t is adj
mitted, he had right to do under the agreement,
and no question arises to that except as to the
work done and the value OF 1t. The questions
raised in the court below we're: l. Whether the
bill could be maintained, as there existed rem
edy at law and 2 What was the contract be-
tween the parties as to Holden's bills. Was Smith
entitled to set on any debt Of Holden's to him,
and also whether only the amount Holden owed
him when the sale was made, or all that Holden
afterwards contracted. The question was argued
and submitted.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE VS.. sAvILLE.
This case, involving the right of colored persons
to seats in the National theatre was argued by
Messrs Merrick & Stanton and submitted. The
defence relies upon three points: First, the ncom
potency Of the police; second, the unconsttution-
ality Of the old Legislative Assembly, and third,
the uneonstitutionality Of the law itself.
Strong VS.. Dodge, ct al. Judgment below ar
irmed. Adjourned.