The New York herald., 1875-12-17

ONIlED 6lAl Eo OO1uEME SOOh1.
WASHINGTON, Dec Is, 1875.
The following cases have been argument in the
United States Supreme Court today
No 81 Lewis ct al vs Michigan Central Railroad
Company-Error to the Circuit Court for the Northern
District of Illinois-Lewis and others sought to re-
cover Of tho company, as common car carriers upon H
cline iD price of certain WOOL while in course OF trans
portation from Chicago to Utica, n Y, upon the the
ory that the company bound itself for the ransporta
ton beyond its line, and that they were therefore
responsible for the delay occurring the other lines
over which the wool passed the through rates. The
court below held & that s S SSptFa'' e. ss SF Py fhFGgrs
contract the part of the company TO be
liable for the transportation beyond its
line, and the Judgment was for the road 1t is here
urged that any agreement by which the consgnors
were to pay through rates to the company bound the
company for through transportation otherwise 1t would
have to be construed contract for the benefit of
party only leaving the other without any advantage to
be derived from the obligation to pay. s. r. Sausurn
for plaintiff in error; Dexter Smith for defendant
No. SO. Dow vs. Bartholomew ct al.-Error to tho
Circuit Court for Wisconsin This is action
pei the Board Of Supervisors of the town Of Waldck
Wis to levy tax for the payment % Of certain bonds
having been obtained upon them by the holders. The
judgment was for the Board on various technical
grounds which are assigned here error. Cause sub.
mitted on the printed points by Matthew H. Carpenter
for plaintiff In error defendant not appearing.
No. SO. Watts Washington Territofy-Error to
the Supreme Court Of the Territory-Watts was con-
viced of murder in the court below The turned
upon question Of jurisdiction, as the place where the
not at the time OF the offence within the limits of tho
Territory OF the United States, being in dispute
between the United States and Great Britain. Subse-
quently TO the murder the Emperor Of Germany, to
whom the question OF boundary was referred decided
the disputed territory to belong TO the United States
and IL Is within the limits OF the Territory. 1t is here
mantaiped that the understanding existing between
the two countries in reference TO the place was that,
pending the final decision of the question as to
Jurisdiction neither party should use exclu-
sve sovereign rights and that therefore, tho
courts OF the United states without authority to
xsinN nd nph tha nrfan Thn npnN
claims that there treaty the subject and that
any arrangement entered into between the military
thores of the United States and the authorities Of
Great Britain, If II had any efficiency whatever would
have to be proved, and then would form basis for
writ of to this Court But IL is said that there
no understanding inconsistent with the claim OF
sovereignty by the United States; each party to
victon was legal and this Court has jurisdiction to
review IT, ~ Wilson Tor plaintiff in error; L. b. Smith
for the government
No. 81. Grand Trunk Railway Company Of Canada vs.
Richardson ct al-Error to the Circuit Court for Ner
mont-This action to damages OF the
Trunk road for the destruction Of property by lro
ignted by the engine Of one OF its trains. The prop
erty destroyed was within the limits Of the roadway
and the questions were-1rst, was II there by proper
authority and second II there by the agreement and
consent OF .he company, STILL could there be a recov
ery2 The court below sustained the evidence adduced
to show that representatives OF the company had leased
the premises to the losers by the fire. and ruled that
they entitled to 1t is here claimed that
the evidence Of the lease was improperly admitted,
and that in any there could be no recovery be-
cause no negligence the part OF the company was
shown. But the main point to be decided Is whether
the building the houses the placing of the prop
erty the track of the road not such cupa
BILE negligence on the part OF tho defendant in error
here, contributing toward the circumstances which
caused such loss as will preclude q recovery Dale,
Bingham Ray for paintin in error Holbert E. Paine
and Henry Haywood Tor defendanta