The New York herald., 1876-02-06
The WATSON WEBB CASE.

Three weeks ago Judge Batchford, sitting in the
United District Court for the Southern district
Of New YORK, rendered decision In the OF the
United States against James Watson Webb late United
States Minister to Brazil motion made to commit
ihe late Minister jail for contempt OF Court for re-
fusinr to disclose the names OF "certain influential
Brazilans'' with whom he had settled government
claim The decision filed by Judge Batchord.
During the past three weeks the HERALD reporters
have beer searching for IT. The copy ncd with the
Clerk Of the Court is missing The following the de.
eaion-
The United States va James Watson webh-The defen-
can't his to the complaint in this suit sets
Wells entered Arrang that the be OBJ
.fe SssT snS that Soo sSs should BE- m
,ed the United states to be paid over TO Wells that
proposed he acted in carrying out the settlement
vas attempted. communicated and assentsd 70 and
,neesaen,y sePrcysS BY ,SS PsnIss And iss.
paid 49,252 sterling 10 such parties IN Brazil"
sd psd % w. and ss s9S 1Sc action s' Of BE-
n carrying throagh the settlement Of The claim under such
nerlnR such parties Ia Brazil' was communicated 70
s~.r has been accepted by plaintiffs sufficient form
ss 10 Ts9n sssS am. snas 'hs S ~. i" o
essuAted therein otherwise than as eerain parties in
we're the plaintiffs that in what
70 and approved ana ratified by the psn
trs such persons desgnated otherwise than AS Ger
tain parties in Brazil
1dan, M ssys ss.. he PAID o1 Ss sssns 10 ee
BrAxihansn naming them. The plaintiffs
having obtained order that the defendant an
farther such interrogatores by disclosing
Of the Brazilians reierred show
Why he shoad not be punished as for contempt
complaint sbould be stricken ont, why such
other steps should be taken the Court may
punish him for compel him
and the defendant having disclosed such the
have been heard The whether
.eudanf ought be punished Tor contempt any
penalty inflicted for not disclosing such names
his replies TO the nterro the defendant
correspondence between himself and the Department
contained In printed volume printed author
the Uuitet Is does
spopdence II alleged in the replies Of the defendant
she inerrogatoss that he has the
o. whatever approval ratification there by the
DeIartment Of state. By the plaintiffs through
that department Of the payment alleged have
been made Of the 50. 10 sterling, appro-
val or ratification Of snythng of the payment c
ncney persons Who not named and who we're net
sneh volume page ls2 the persons referred 20 dess
mated BY defen inhueneal Brazsns A. page
las Zone influential 0f the opposition, sud
with whom treated" and As she purchasers
81 the the leaders u tie so pArties aud
page the party Who took the matter In charge"
the defence he answer Is based upon alleged
and approvss In which the names ot the
HrAsans referred disclosed and the
disclose She think Il must Be held that
enclosure by the defendant IL Irrelevant 60 the
isaue not important The desncs n any. Of she defend
the of action forth by the
rnuts SO much therefore Of the order Of November ~
1875 reques the defendant 90 answer further nterrOsa
Bss District Attorney io the plaintiffs; John e. Parsons
tuT q