National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-05-14
THE COURTS.
cirrnit cnurt-Iudra Humphrsns.

SA4Ou4b
This court was engaged as follows yesterday:
Rider vs.. Petit. Action for damages. The
case was submitted to the Jury, with instructions
King vs.. Washington and Georgetown Railroad
Company. Judgment for plaintiff, with one
cent damages.
Gsllulet vs.. Sykes and Hansam rs. Behens.
Shaw vs.. French. Judgment for plaintiff BY
agreement.
CASES TO-DAY.
The following cases are assigned for trial to-
day; Nos IS, &C. 81, 90, g. IS, &C. 6s, 90, 70, H. 70
Is, 70, so, 81, 81 So, "a and So. Adjourned.
Equity Court-Judgs wylie.
This court was engaged as follows, number Of
interlOcutory orders being made in addition:
Bangs Va. Gormlsy. Order Of reference to
Gray vs.. Gray. Decree Of divorce. .
Bowling vs.. BoWcher. Order Of reference to
auditor.
Board Of Public Works Of Virginia vs.. English
Report OF auditor confirmed. Adjourned.
Supreme Court-Gensral Term.
All the justices except Justice Humphreys sat
in this court yesterday, and were engaged as fol-
John H. Lynch was admitted to the bar OF this
court.
Haron Johnson was appointed q commissioner
Van RisWick VS.. Lannon. Argued and sub.
Laura " Robinson vs. John F. Cook, collector.
Benedict johnson vs.. A. F. Ohutt ct al. The
bill in this case sets forth that Elijah Shelton.
late Of said District, By deed dated 2sth July,
plaintiff north half lot % in B and H addition to
Georgetown, D. O.; that after the death Of Shell
ton said Ofutt ct al, I'd September, 1854, filed
bill against Skeletons heirs ct al, alleging that
Shelton was, May Il 1852 seized Of all Of lot e. in
said addition; that he was at that time indebted
conveyed the south half Of lot q one King upon
certain trusts; that said deed was fraudulent;
taken and 9 sale be made for the payment Of said
debt; that plaintiff, who was named defendant in
said BILL IS the husband Of one o. Skeletons chill
did not employ counsel that July 20, 1856, other
adult heirs filed an answer In their plaintiffs
name, plaintiff being ignorant Of and not signing
or swearing to said answer; that on November IA,
| 1870, by the Supreme Court Of the Distrit Oolum
bis, in general term, decree was passed adjudg-
ing said deed OF trust Of the south half Of said lot
not to be fraudulent, and ordering the north half
part Of said lot to be sold for the payment Of
Shelton's debts: On the 18th July, 1871, adecree
half Of said lot to be sold, &C. and that upon the
fnal ratification "there shall be conveyed to the
purchaser all the right Of the parties in this
/ In and to the ground" sc; that plaintiff hear
| ing Of decree, did, on the 5th September, 1871,
| through ]. Bell Adams, esq, file petition for
rehearing and dismissal Of suit as to his part Of
lot Is; that summons issued and was served, and
| plaintiff was ready with his proofs, when, on Q
motion filed 18th February, 1871, for reasons en-
petition on March s, 1879; that plaintiff Novem-
Der Q, 1872, asked leave, through B. H. Webb,
| esq, to file q bill Of review before the Court In
| General Term, which petition was, November l6,
1872 refused; that said part Of said lot was sdVer
tised for sale 18th October 1874 and said plaintiff
relying on his ceunsels Information that his
rights would be protected did not know Of Il till
18th Of October, 1874; that at said sale he pro-
| tested that his and not SheltOn's lot was being
| sold, but that that sale was made; that said de-
crees and orders, under color Of which said sale
| was made, are now enrolled and final, and have
| been executed by sale, but should be reviewed
| and set aside for various reasons; that Shelton
BY said deed had Invested himself of said part Of
said lot; did not die seized thereof and it did not
descend to his heirs, and was not subject to his
/ debts.
Said answer is not his and does not contain any
allegation Of seiEn; that by his petition he did
| assert his claim, and made his ownership known
to the court and counsel for Ofett ct al; that no
proof was taken to support the allegation in said
bill mot sworn toy of seiKin; no account Of Shell
| toms estate was taken as q basis OF Q decree;
plaintiff was defendant only as tenant by the
courtesy; that said decree Of July II 1871 orders
sale Of the interest Of the heirs-atlaWs as such.
Of Shelton In real estate of which he did not die
seized; that plaintiff, colored man and ignorant,
has been sufficiently diliRent in the assertion Of
| his rights, and he asked that these DEGREES may
be reversed and reviewed, and the sale be re-
| strained, sc.
The defendants dsmurred, and the demurrer
was oyerruled. The case was decided in General
Term, and the plaintiff now says that there is
| allegation that leave Of court was nrst had and
obtained for fling bill Of review, and that there is
no jurisdiction IN this court to review q decree
made BY the highest appellate court, namely, the
| court in bGnc.
The 90 90 mas mt eopeIudad Ad,on-nad