National Republican., 1876-02-26
LEGAL NOTES.

LEGAL NOTES.
Proceedings in All tn. court.-A Glance q
ths District Judgss-7irc1it Court, Chi.
Justies Cartier.
Crane Bros Maosfscturiug Company vi
shepherd. Defendant sailed and Judgment rsr
Wilson ys Lucas and WtI,os vs.. Luca, S Cox
Cossolidatedi verdict for plzinf tor SSS9.is, viii
interest from October 10. 1879.
The court then, at 80 O'CLOCK .. m, adJouIne
| until to-day at 70 a.. m.
| ASSIGNMENTS FOR MoarAY.
Nos. 95l. 134 %. I3s, Io3, H. IE, 40, H. I4J
40 ~, 49, lj. lS2 $50, Iol 49, ID, I53, l5a I53
ia, lis.
Criminal cour:-Judgs Macarthur.
James Van Alstins, larceny. One ysar in the
penitentiary.
Addison Coleman, resssting an oficsr. Guilty
and nine months in lsit.
John 7. Washington. Guilty, and two Toars In
the penitentiary.
Gfeenbury D1valI and Frank Lo.nes were con.
victed OF stealing Brshma chickens from L. J.
MiddIeton, u, and sentences 20 one year each in
The penitentiary.
William Botts and John Williams, for larceny,
years.
Frank Lowndes aud Greenbury Duvall, charged
w:th second oIs1se Of larceny.
lac court then, at O'Clock, ad,oarnsi over IN
til Monday next.
SupIens OOufL OF t1e united states.
On motion of Hon VIM. PinckneS Whyts, Fred
erick .. Prince, esq, OF Boston, Macs, was ad-
mitted to practice as an attorney and counselor of
On motion of Mr J. b. Sanborn, Stanford
Newell, esq, of ST. Paul, Minn., and John II.
Baker. ESQ.,, OF Goshoa, Ind, were admitted to
court.
No lsi. ElOn Farnswerth ct al, appellants, Vs.
Ihe Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company OF
q N n ia nIT, lad f-
Pellants.
No; ls5 The Piedmont and Arlington Life In
Surance Company, platntss in error, vs.. Ashley
W. Ewing, administrator Sc. This cause was
argued by Mr. +. q. Darlington, OF counsel for
the plaintiff ia error, and submitted on printed
error. -
Nc: lsS Harvey Terry, plaintiff in error. W.
Mr Harvey Terry, the plaintiff in error and SUB
nltted on printed arguments by Mr. Il. Hull,
for the defendant IN error.
No. I4s. Henrietta Hoffman, appellant, Va. Ths
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
Ine IN argument Of this cause was commenced 6y
ny J A. Garfield. OF counsel for ths appellant,
Adjourned until Morda , at l. O'Clock.
A Glance at the judges.
1t is refreshing to observe the dispatch with
which Justices Macarthur and wylls and Chief
Justice Cartier dispose Of the numerous cases
which daily come before them for adludic alton
Justice Macarthur must have daily struggles
between inclination aud duty. He is evident!y 4
gentleman OF much feeling, as is evinencsd by
the moist eye which he exhibits when forced 10
pass sente1cs upon some unfortunate.s . Inyar,-
ably his Judgment is tempered BY mercy. and
acting upon the legal ma kim that the law doss
not punish so much Tor crime as to preveat crime
when an offender has been sentenced on one in.
clctment he generally allows the prosecuting
officer TO enter ROLE prosequis in the rsmaiuipS
cases. In one instance of this kind yesterday his
Honor stated 10 defendant whe had been SEN
n n ha tOr q isnr Ip
II he exhibited disposition TO reform and be-
come better man he would take into consiiera-
tion the Propriety OF dismisslns- two other cases
Of similar nature against him Justice Willie
IS daily to be seen in his accustomed seat and
his Judgments are almost invariably taken as
Chief Justice Cartier is literally a iud,.,.r
prince, If We may use the term. The slight ia
pedient Of speech which charscterizss his utter
acces become faei1ating when you become accus
toned TO them. He never fails to gras9 the
strong and true points In the case before nj and
suggestion here and there frequently clears the
mind of some disciple ct Blackstone, aud enables
him TO view his clients interest in proper light
All in all the judiciary Of the District OfCOlumbIa
is a fine one, and citizens should feel proud that
their lives and property are in such taientet and
honorable hands.
The Case Of Charles G. Fisher.
Before Judge Macarthur yesterday in the
Criminal Court a motion was made By W A
Cooke, esq, TO reduce the bail Of Charles G.
Fisher, late Assistant District Attorney. Mr
Cooke argued that there were in reality bu. two
valid cases against the deiendant and that to
require more than s., 900 bail in each case would
be excessive. District Attorney Wells opposed
this motion at some length, repeating the enorm
ity Of the alleged crimes committed BY the de-
fendant, and urging that no reduction In the
bail as originally ordered by the court be made
Whatever may have been the nature or extent
of the offenses charged against the unfortunate
Charles Fisher, it Is quite evident that this prose-
cntion is fast merging into "persecution," the
II nj nd f0er
granting him speedy trial in compliance With
constitutional mandates. Just how the majesty
ol the law is upheld oy the course pursued to-
His Honor will decide upon the motion on Mon
cay next.
Insurance Alter the Dsath Of the Subject. -
The case of Ewing, administrator of Hewes,
was yesterday argued before the Supreme Court
OF thel United States, involving 4 novel question
OF insurance. Houes was insured for 5000 in
September. 1871, paJ ing part OF the first semi-
annual payment Of premium by an advertisement
for the comyaay in his paper, the Peoples Tri-
6uns, published at Jefferson City, No. The bal.
apce of the premium wes not paid until he I4th
Of October following, when it was paid by HoWes'
partner to a sub agent of the company. The
money came into the hands OF the company the
next day, (SunGay) and on that day he counter.
Rnsd the policy as Of the 10th, Monday and sent
II IN. II turned cut that Howes died on the Iith
Saturday. The defense was that the delivery
Of the poiicy after the death OF the insured, did
lot bibd the company, as the agent did not re-
ceive the money until the 18th, and did not then
deceased, when insured, had made false state
ments concerning mis- habits as to Temperance
and in respect TO his health. The court ruled
that the payment Of the balance of the premium
TO the sub-ageDt was sufficient, and that as the
agent had never afterwards demanded the sur
render Of the policy anu rendered back the
money, his acts were a ratihc ltion OF the insur-
arce which bound the company. The appeal con-
tests this ruling, denying It's correctness.