National Republican., 1876-12-09
Equity Court.
iReEnre Iudpe WYIIe.

CREE OF DIVORCE MADE-A DEMURRER OVER
KULED-AE AUDITORS REPORT REOoMNITTED.
pany. Defendant ordered to show amounts and
parties who have paid to the company since order
DraperG Cows Burgess Motion TO rescind
bond hIed for December IL.
United States VS.. Smoot. Demurrer overruled,
and leave to defendant until lst Tuesday in jan
uAry, IS77, to file answer.
District Of Columbia vs.. Grahamite and TrIni-
dad Asphalt Company. Restraining order dis
charged and Injunction denied.
Doing VS.. Doing. Suit for divorce. Appear
anee Of absent defendant ordered.
Truesden VS.. Phillips. Bond OF trustee ap-
proved.
A. Grass, and monthly annuity authorized.
Williams w. MoulIon ct al Time fxed for
taking proof to EebruaryT. F...
F. s and T. companyvs Wood ct al Pro con-
feSso ys. defendants ordered.
Rasher vs. Utermehle. Decision directing
recommittal to auditor for survey.
Holmes VS.. Vandenburgh. Exceptions over
GrifHn vs. Griffin. Decree of divorce
Clagett VS.. Brooks. Sale decreed and Dorsey
Clagett appointed trustee.
Criminal Court.
Before Judge Macarthur.
REVIVAL OF THE MARKET-sTALL sUITs-A STAY
OF PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER AND TRIAL OF A
TEST CASE TO BE NADE-DIsPoSING OF A
HORSE THIEF.
Messrs. r. T Merrick and R. Z. Elliott, coun-
sci for certain market dealers, and Mr.. Birney,
attorney for the District of Columbia, came be-
fore his Honor TO have an understanding regard
ing certain suits for stall rent in which judg-
ment had been passed. Mr.. Merrick moved to
set aside the judgments in the cases Of District Of
Columbia vs. Chandler and District of Columbia
vs Thompson. Hesaid that the suits were in re-
iaton TO the rights of holders of stalls dealers in
different classes of articles in the markets Of the
city. A difference OF opinion existed as to the
they maintaining that under one clause of the
Ia~ IL should be q certain sum, and the District
Attorney insisting that il should be an increased
had QUrand hptWaPr
to Try certain cases, have the principle settled,
and then the other parties should abide by the
decision rendered. He had hrst appeared in the
cases at the Police Court when Judge Shell was
absent, and Mr.. Dawson was acting as judge
At that bearing q decision was given that the
Etall-holders should pay rental Of s. instead
The counsel for the District was dissatisfied
with the decision, and claimed that there should
be an opinion from the court Other cases were
tried in that court, before Judge Smell, and ad-
verse decision given TO that made by Mr.. Daw-
soR, and an appeal taken to this court TO settle
thevexed question. He had tried repeatedly to
get them up before the court, but was unable to
90 TO- as sr MS aOpSf hsnes s b ws tbs
discovery that IN June last, while absent himself
from the city, these eases were taken up and
Judgment was given. He nov asked that these
judgments be set aside and the cases heard on
their merits.
District Attorney William Birney replied, and
stated that at the time Of the appeal there was
decided disagreement between Mr. Merrick and
himself as 70 verbal verbal agreement & Ss. that as had
previously been entered into between them.
He had had expected judgments 20 be
rendered in the court below in the cases
that had been referred to, and that they
Te S0D Sn sPPS1 Ss apa
ing cases. He bad expected to test the butcher
cares, but decision was given against him, and
he was virtually out Of court as far as these cases
were concerned. He refused to bring the other
cases before acting Judge Dawson and declined
TO submit TO his decision as final, and notified Mr..
MerTick that he would take up the remaining
cases and push them forward as rapidly as POSI-
bic. There was no agreement. The cases came
before this court in due time on appeal, and were
absence OF Mr.. Merrick. Mr.. Elliott had been In
court frequently, and he found 1t extremely diff
they we're nsliy ina sf submitted. ed he tn thought the the
matter was brought forward for the purpose of
making personal attack on himself, as the cases
had been passed for considerable length Of
time, and II was now asked that they be brought
back.
Mr.. Merrick replied that there was no attempt
to make an attack on the counsel. 1t would be
small business and leaning toward contempt OF
the court. He says that they did not intend Act
ing Judge Dawson should try the cases. Subse-
q1ently the agreement was made that the other
cases should come up here for trial and decision.
He had no written agreement, it was true, but he
relied on the courtesy Of counsel and fairness of
the court. He asked that the Judgments be dis
charged.
Mr. Elliot said he knew nothing of the cases
that came before Acting Judge Dawson, only
those that came before his Honor. 1t was true
that they were postponed once on account OF the
quently taken he knew nothing about.
His Honor sSeted that the cases involved matter
Of considerable and continuing interest inasmuch
as they involved rights in the markets He was
willing that they should reopen one Of the cases
and try it at the present time, and allow the
others 10 stand. A decision in one would answer
for all. There was evidently misunderstanding
between the counsel TO the stipulations regard
ing the trying of the cases.
cases where Judgment had been rendered, and
decided to try the case Of J. A. Hoffman, butcher,
on Wednesday next.
THE TRIAL OF WIN. H. oTTMAN.
United States District Attorney H. II. Wells
asked the Court to set day for the second trial
taking al or. .65 from the United States Treasury
in 1875. He said ne understood that ex-senator
Carpenter, one Of the counsel for the defense,
would be unable to be present until after Decem-
Der, and suggested that January 2 1877, be desig-
mated as the day for the beginning Of the trial.
Mr.. W. A. Cook thought that about the 10th Of
the month would be more acceptable.
Mr.. Elliot hoped that day would not be set,
as there was every prospect when that time ar
rived Of Q postponement being asked for. He
thought 1t would be better for the counsel to get
together and agree upon time for opening the
HIS Honor said that he would fix a day as soon
possible for the trial, so that II should not IN
terfere with the general term, and thought that
the 4ih Of January would be the best time.
Mr.. Elliot again suggested to his Honor to let
the counsel get together and see II they could not
settle uRon a day and give them until Monday
HIS Honor said that It was q reasonable sug-
gestion, and he would allow them the time
he would then hx day, and had intimated what
his course would be.
THE ROUTINE BUSINESS.
Michael Sexton, James Regan and Edward
Long, charged with resisting Uficer VIM. kel-
Ium while IN the discharge Of hisduty, in making
verdict Of guilty as 10 Michael sexton snd james
ReRan, and not guilty as 70 Edward Long. The
court sentenced Them 70 thirty days in jail.
ing one bay horse Of Peyton vaughn's, In Noyem-
Der, 1876 The jury returned q verdict Of guilty,
and the court sentenced him TO two years in the
Theodore Watkins, indicted for burglariously
entering house No. Lafayette square on June z
jury returned verdict Of guilty. A motion for
new trial was entered and sentence deferred.
Police Court.
Before Judge Smell.
SHIRT THIEF CAPTURED-A FINE MOUTH FOR
APPLE BUTTER-Two VISITORS CHECKED FOR
THE Farm.
Nat. Turner, larceny OF two shirts from Alice
Turner; $40 and costs. John Flanagan, petit
larceny; 81 and costs. Frank Warner colored
each; saO or sixty days. Mary Barrett was sent
down for vaR1ancy. Charles Comlossly, charged
with breaking and defacing private property, the
or sixty days in jail. Richard Fillmore was sent
down for yagrancy.
Court Calendar for Monday.
CIRCUIT COURT before Chief Justice CARTIER
No. "a, United States vs.. Lawson; los, Goldsmith
vs. johnson; 12o, Rittenhouse, Fowler & 90. VS..
Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company; 1875
Moore VS.. Sharp; 30, Cohen VS.. Sharp; 2l2, Rose
VS.. Copeland; 2l3, Slater VS.. johnson Williams;
Ys, Eastwood VS.. Lowe & Rollins; n, Rollins VS..
Sharp; rs, Sehopp's administrator vs.. Metropol-
Itan Life Insurance Company; 23S, Frank vs..
Lewis; 239, johnson, use Of Stiokney. vs. Dobbins;
al, Sehonl'H vs. Nash & Dexter; $50, Neale VS..
Bender; 49,, Morton ls Cammack & Ward; 252
Archer and Pancosst Manufacturing Company
VS.. Shepherd; 266, Robinson VS.. Baltimore and
Potomac Railroad Company; 2s5, O'Neale VS..
Vanderburgh; 54, United States VS.. Lee ct al.
EQUITY COURT, before Judge Wylie.-No. IL.
Selke vs.. Peck; 13. Owen vs.. Syphax; IA. Cooke
vs.. McBlair; Is. Blake VS.. FAINT; l6. Hills vs..
McNamara; II. Barrett VS.. BIgeioW; ls Bowen
vs.. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company; 10.
Hetzen VS.; Warner; 20. Wise VS.. WlIfs; q.
Coombs TE. Walsh.
CRIMINAL COURT, before Judge MacArthur.-
Frank Honesty, assault, two cases; VIM. Tyler
forgery five cases; John r. Brooks perjury; Geo
&. Smith and Lowell Tate, larceny; Mary Canaan,
murder Of her infant child.
Indictments.
The grand Jury came into court yesterday with
the following indictments: Frank Foreman and
-