The New York herald., 1875-12-14

necteut 81, $685. case ,024 Sarah y Church admins
tralrix 81 322; o30 Alfred 8. Chester, u SlT
case Ta6 John Ferrart, $3.50; case l,o2o, George D.
Benjamin administrator ST. 662i case l02o, Henry W.
Bond, administrator 81, us; case LOFT, Edward Ben
jamn ST. no. case 1852 sabin T. Berry. $685. case 7os
Eden NJ stratton ct al, $285 So; case ,iSo,
Charles E Brown, 500 90; case l,13s, Peter sylvia
5000; case l,239, A. Rowland, 81, ,2l0 5O case l,Sii
Ignacio, dismissed; $685. Emeline Hunnewer
Administrative ST. Os9 56 case lo99, Aurora Finn et
al, s7so; case L. OBJ, Willis Clark administrator,
$3.50; 375, Samuel II. Doane, $40 So, including
the of $780, the value of chronometer claimed by
the petitioner as which Wells presiding judge,
dssened in the following words:"In this case it will
be noticed that a special judgment is given in which
mention Is made OF the OF $3.50 s awarded as the
value Of a chronometer which Captain Samuel d.
Doane, the petitioner, In his testimony. states be-
longed to william Williams and which
the said Doane had hired from Williams"
The ground OF this dissent founded on
the fact that in the original petition no mention IS
made Of the ownership in Williams Of TINS
chronometer 1t is treated the property OF Saul d.
Doane When Doane's testimony taken it is
made to appear that the chronometer hired by him
from Williams who was portuguese,
that could neither read write, and that
he gave him nhe petitoner)' power OF
attorney to make claim for IT, The
petitioner makes claim for this chronometer the
attorney in fact of Williams but puts II In his
schedule personal effects embraced in his petition
though II in fact his property. II Is intimated
In the testimony that II judgment is given In favor Of
the petitioner for the value OF the chronomeer no
would hold il in trust for said Williams II is thus
timated by the petitioner himself that the demand for
the chronomcter is not fairly before tho Court He In
fact asks tins Court to create trust estate for the bene
/ nt Of Williams, inasmuch the claim has not
been presented by the petitioner the attorney in
| fact OF the person really owning the chronometer.
Thssum OF $3.50 is a small item for To differ with q
majority Of tins Court upon but the principle involved
Is the same as though the amount was the value Of
ship or heavy invoice Of merchandise The claim Of
| Williams for the value OF the chronometer, IN my
estimation, is not properly before the court and
therefore dissent from this carefully considered
judgment Of majority Of this court
In case No OIL Judge Baldwin announced that the
judgment of November Is, 1875 in this would be
set aside, and judgment was entered for 81 900 sa
! Judge Sewell announced the following Judgments
Case oo5-To William Barnes a8 and Charles Barnes
81, l62 so; Harriet P. Williams, $26S rs; Charles p.
Fitch, ST. rs rs; Hannah P. Williams ct al, executors
$26s IS; Moses H Grinnell executors; Robert B..
Minturn ct al executors $40 s12 So The Court fix
the entire catch of the vessel the General Williams, at
$2S 49, of which there recovered by insurance
ss4s 90 leaving $l4 no is to be distributed in propo
proportions according TO tho law among the respective
parties entitled thereto, and in making such distrbu-
ton the catch of such ship 10 all parties except the
persons insured shall be taken and deemed to be the
sum of SIS, 61S 38, with interest
Case No Co., Isaac Levy and Leopold Scheus vs. The
United States presented TO the Court upon the evidence
and brief per request of counsel for claimant and Of f.
| Hackett, of counsel for the United States.
Case No. S43 Caleb T. Huston, The United States;
No S44, John H. McLaren The United States No.
| 845, Charles Brooks Paine and @. s. Paine vs. The
United States; No $40, Seward b Hume ct al vs. The
United States; No SAT, Robert Morne The United
/ States No. 84S, John P Townsend ct al VS.. The
United States No $40, David Rowland ct al. vs. The
United States; No $50, Gustavus A. Godbold vs. The
United States; No S51, Patrick Kidney vs. The United
States; No 852, Alexander K. Bryer VS. The United
StatesS No 1853, George Everett Bryer The United
States; No S54, Zeba Nickerson ct al The United
States No S55, Polly Bearse Administrative, vs. The
United States; No 1853, The Estate OF John Langdon
ct al vs.. The United States; No. S57, Betsey
Eldridge The United states No 1858, Jonathan Ell
bridge VS. The United States; No. $50, Clement Ken
dreck VS.. The United States; No $50, Joshua Young
Bearse The United States; No. S61 ELIJAH W. Car
penter The United States; No. S62, Nurbeck N.
Kent vs The United States; No. 1858, Joseph Harding
VS. The United States; No. $685. II. O. Ryder The
United States; No s66 Joseph Sargent The United
States; No. S67. Henry Pigeon The United
States; No. $685. Nathania Dclano vs. The United
States; No. 500, Elisha Hayden, by Gordon
Hayden, administrator ct nj vs.. the United States
1lS5, 0rin v. Harding vs. The United States All the
growing of the loss of the bark Zelnda of East
port, Me- destroyed by the Alabama July TO- 1884 and
of the bark Lamplighter, destroyed by the Alabami
October Is 1862 The cases we're submitted upon tn,
evidsce and argument OF counsel G. G. Beaman, Jr.
for claimants, and Frank w. Hackett for the Unite
States
No. ST. Mortimer D. Conkln ct al VS.. The Unite
States; No SIS Dill The United States, and No
LIS, Charles E. Spencer VS.. The United States
These causes connected with the loss Of the Electri
Spark, presented to the commission tho testi
mony and argued in court by B. W. Tbrockmorton TO
claimants and Frank W. Hackett for the government