National Republican., 1876-12-19

brother and sisters as their natural guardian, ana
disbursed the moneys in various ways for the ben
etit of the plaintiffs. Exception was taken 70 the
allowance made to the administrators by the au-
ditor. The court below sustained the auditor
Justice Humphreys delivered the opinion OF the
court, Affirming the Judgment given below.
Robert S. Campbell VS.. District Of Columbia;
The plaintiff sued an accouRt for labor due ana
material furnished to defendant. During the
trial below Il was shown that there were mutual
accounts between the parties ana h tne eOust nd ars
dealings between the parties to be audited and
stated by the auditor. The request was made,
was certified 10 tie General Term. Justice Hum.
phreys delivered the opinion of the court, remand
ing the case to the Circuit Court, with fnstruc-
tions to try the cause by jury.
THE BUILDING ASSOCIATION CASE.
Yates VS.. Eighth Building Association. This
was a case as to fines in q building association
The complainant comes into court and agrees to
pay advances to him with interest, and asked
that the trustees be enjoined from selling his
property. There is statute in the District ex
empting these associations from the operations OF
the rule prohibiting the receiving Of more than
money. 1t appears from the record that higher
rate than the legal rate was about to be exacted,
and the Equity Court did right in enjoining the
is not lender of money 70 its mem oers; that II Is
joint stock company, and that there is no abso-
to return the advances, &c. does not meet the
case. The Equity Court says in reply: You
already have the legal title with the power In the
deed TO sell, and the court will require the CON-
plainant to do equity, to pay back what he re-
ceiye before 1t vii issue an injunction.
These building associations are voluntary asso.
risk their money at a higher rate Of interest than
what is legal There is an advantage In the as.
socaton however IN tnat the S SepsGL svsd sron
this power of the legal title to his real estate
with which he has parted he will be required to
pay principal and interest. The decree below
a affirmed Iustice Humphreys delivered the
opinion.
TAXING A RAILROAD COMPANY.
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company vs.
District of Columbia. The bill Of complaint of
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company is
that under its charter of Incorporation all Of its
property in this District has the same exemption
from taxation as that which It owns In the state
Of Maryland, and that the authorities Of this
District for fifteen years past have so admitted.
and about the year 1858 the Circuit Court of this
District enjOined the tax collector from collecting
taxes upon the property of the complainant. The
latter is now advised and charges that the COL
lector of taxes of the District has demanded pay
ment of large amount of taxes against various
lots Of ground, with improvements thereon,
amounting in the aggregate to 81, i2, and are
for the period of time between 1854 and 1875.
against the District of Columbia and the city tax
collector, commanding them not to proceed to ad-
vertise for sale to sell the property mentioned
and enjoining them from arsessing, levying and
collecting any taxes upon the said property. The
restraining order was issued as applied for.
In answer the defendant denies that the Court
of Appeals in its decision exempted from taxation
every description of property held and owned by
the b. o. r. r. Co: that the decision relates to
the exercise of the taxing power Of the Govern
ment of the United States or of any other State
than Maryland. 1t is denied that under and by
virtue Of the various acts of Congress In which
the aTed TO eHsna ts It's
said company in said District and city has the
same exemption from taxation under the author
fly of the laws of the United States as that which
aa n MARYLAND
spect to taxation by said State.
1t is denied that in 1858 the Circuit Court of the
District enjoined the tax collector from collecting
taxes upon the property Of the complainant. It
is admitted that the city collector has demanded
the payment of these taxes, and maintained that
by the complainant before 1t came into their pos
session the property remains liable for such
taxes. The defendant further maintains that
much of the property owned and held by said
company in the District is not necessary In the
construction, use and repair of said road. The
decree of the court below made the injunction
perpetual, from which decision the defendant ap-
pealed.
In this case the court was equally divided, and
It was decided to have reargument Of the cause
Cordial Stoors, trustee, VS.. Alexander Sharp
United States Marshal. The plaintiff sues the
defendant for wrongfully taking and OBTAINING
me pial9tns gooSs ana enaateis oi tne value oi
defendant and delivered to him; or, If they have
been disposed of, that he may have Judgment for
that the goods and chattels described in the
declaration were not now, any Of them or either
of them, the property of the plaintiff as alleged.
Judgment of the court below reversed, and cause
remRnded for q new trial. Justice Humphreys
delivered the opinion of the court.
Tfnt4ad States VS.. Bernard May. The defend
ant was toted for and convicted of the crime of
abortion. The ti>tal occurred In the close of the
end of the court ana the defendant was sentenced
at the beginning of the n Inc case Was @ ear:
ried up on exceptions. The ST. ssa'e Vi 'ie o0ur'
below was affirmed.
OTHER CASES DECIDED.
Decisions were also given in the following cases!
johnson & Co. VS.. Dexter. Decree below al
firmed.
Otterback VS.. Brown. Judgment reversed, and
Myers vs. Myers. Judgment reversed.
Nailor VS.. Nailor. Judgment affirmed.
Naudain VS.. Ormes, Judgment afR--
MED sSWnFfer de-
,speIden vs. Davis. Motion for rehearing de-
Deidem vs. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad
Company. Appeal on demurrer denied.
OBrien VS.. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad
Company. Appeal on demurrer denied.
Springman VS.. Baltimore and Potomac Rail-
road Company. Appeal on demurrer denied.
West VS.. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad
Appeal on demurrer denied; led
FAINT VS.. Steuart, Affirming decree below.
Converse VS.. Washington and Georgetown
Adjourned until the 25th instant.
Circuit Court.
Before Chief Justice Cartier
ANOTHER IMPEcUNIoUs DEBToR-AN OVERDUE
PRoMIssoRY NOTE.
Frank d. Neale VS.. Robert Bender and Jos.
Bender. This is an action to recover 5000, with
interest at 10 per cent, on overdue promissory
note. Case still on.
Equity Court.
Before Judge Wylie.
This court will reconvene to-day at IL a. m,
and in all probability be steadily engaged on
the assignment TO be found below in the court
calendar.
Probate Court.
Before Judge Olin.
This ccurt meets at IL o'clock to-day, in the
Register Of Wills ofice, and it will be the last
session previous to Christmas There is con-
siderable business to transact, and all persons
having matter for the consideration Of his Honor
would find 1t to their advantage to be on hand at
the opening fthe court.
Criminal Court.
Before Judge Macarthur.
SENTENCING FEIos-gIx1Ne BAIL IN SERIOUS
CASES.
George P. Overton, convicted last week OF grand
larceny, was sentenced to the penitentiary for
In the case of Columbus Pearson, indicted for
grand larceny, bail was fixed at $500.
In the case of Earl S. Rathburn, charged with
robbing letters, Dall was n1eo at el,OV
Police Court.
Before Judge Smell.
SECURING HIS WINTER FuRL-A DANDY THIEF
THAT WANTS GoLD-HRADED CANB-AFTER
CHRISTMAS POULTRY.
william Newton, stealing q bushel Of coal and
some frewood from John Stoddard; fined 81.
Abraham Page, larceny Of a gold-headed walking
stick from Horace Cafron; six months in jail.
Thomas Delany, assault on Frederick Miller, S5
and costs Maria Davenport, George W. Davis
and Hamilton q. Wright forfeited collateral.
Christopher Tyler, larceny Of four chickens, the
property of Mary Doran; so or sixty days. John
Tanning, loud and boisterous: IS. Blackstone
Jones, Robert Brown, Ida Jones, Geo. Robinson
Mary Q, Hutchins, loud and boisterous; Ss. W.
II. McHenry, charged with keeping a vicious dog,
which bit j. B. Creamer, q smafl boy; dog ordered
killed. Louisa Lucas, profane; s5.
Court Calendar for To-day.
CIRCUIT COURT, before Chief Justice CARTIER
25l, Morton VS.. Cammack Ward; 252 Archer
and Pancoast Manufacturing Company VS.. Shep-
herd; Robinson Vs. Baltimore and Potomac Rail-
road Company; Tyler VS.. Baltimore and Poto-
mac Railroad Company; 2S3, O'Neale VS.. Wander
burgh; 554, United States VS.. Lee ct al.
EQUITY COURT, before Judge wylie.-Nos. a.,
Gersdorff vs.Wheeler ct al; % Otterback VS.. Mat
tingly; IS, Tucker VS.. Hirnick; q, Pell vs..
Johnston; 30 Painter VS.. Drane; 81 Freedmsn's
Savings and Trust Company VS.. Kennedy; 81,
Mcpherson VS.. Acker.
CRIMINAL COURT, before Judge MacArthur.-
VIM. Tyler, forgery, five cases;) @. @. Pearson,