The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-04
THE COURTS.
Argument on the James P. Sinnott Marine
Court Appointment
A BREACH AMONG THE RECHABITES
Validity Of the Contract for Building the Gen.
tral Branch Union Pacific Railroad.
IMPORTANT ADMIRALTY DECISION.

The question to the recognition OF the appointment
By Governor Tden Of James Sinnott as Judge oft
Marine Court to OIL the vacancy caused by tho death
Of tho late Judge SpauIdng. came up for argument
yesterday before the Supreme Court. General Term,
Chief Justice Davis and Judges Brady and Daniels
being on the Bench. Such appointment having boon
Sepudatcd by tho Judges OF tho Marine Court, tho
ground that advice and consent Of the Senate
essential 10 the appointment order granted In
Supreme Court, Chambers, directing the Judges to
show cause why percmptory mandamus should not
issue commanding them to recognize Mr. Sinnott and
assign him TO duty q Judge OF the Court. An appeal
was taken from this order pro forma to enable tho
questions Of law involved in the to be argued fully
before the General Term. There large crowd In
attendance including most Of the judges Of the Marine
Court, vol Mr. sirnot and those mutual friends
specially interested In tho matter. Mr. Edward Jacobs
admitted to the Court the return OF the Justices Of the
Marine Court 10 the writ
Ex-Judgc Fullerton, who appeared on behalf Of Mr.
6tnnott opened the argument He insisted that the
commission Of Mr.. Sinnot under the seal OF the State
being presented 10 the justices, they could go be-
hind II; that II behoovcd them to act upon Il;
that the net regulating the filing of vacancies in the
Marine Court arranged for such appointments to he In
vacancies were then ned by the Governor alone; and
that subsequent legislation in reference to the Superior
Court did not affect the Marine Court Judge Goepp
made tho argument on behalf OF the Marine Court Ho
insisted that tho writ of mandamus should not be
granted the grounds that defendants have acted
for the public veal that the relator has no beneficial
interest and no legal right involved in the SUBJ
1ect matter; that the power and duty to
do what the desired mandamus would require
TO be done resides not in the justices
against whom tho proceeding is taken, but, II
anywhere, in the Marine Court against whom the pro-
coedng Is not taken; that to command person to
recognize judge and assign him to duty is a com.
mand, not to compel the exercise OF ministerial act
function that the Supreme Court viii not 20 interfere.
by mandamus with the mere details OF the practice of
subordinate tribunal; that there Is real and sub
claim Of the relaor to the Office depends upon tho
structon OF statutes which, If not decisive against
him, ambiguous and difficult Of Interpretation;
that the supposed appointment OF the reator is with
out the force and effect OF law that the justices OF the
Marine Court have neither power obligation
Cognize and assign TO duty who does not pre-
sent evidence raising legal presumption OF title, and
that the issuing OF the writ would give rise to greater
difficulties than the refusal. AL these points
argued at length, with citation Of abundant authorities
and at the close the Court took the papers, reservng
It's decision.
THE WRECK OF THE RECHABITEs
The case Of John Lafond ct ais. Henry W. Deems
ct ais which the calendar of the Supreme Court
Special Term called yesterday by Judge Larrc-
more for trial. 1t promises to be very interesting
and exciting action In 1S42 association was formed
In this country under tho trio Of washington Tent No.
l. Independent Order of Rechabtes in North America
Its objects mutual benefit in the exercise Of
Justlce, securing 10 It's members
sympathy and relief in limos OF sickness and distress
and the extension Of the principles of total abstinence
from all intoxicating drinks. At the present time tho
association consists OF thirty-nine members The
plaintiffs who are three in NUMBER make the other
thirty-six members defendants In the action and
allege that plaintiffs and defendants formed
copartnership in this city under the
above name, and that said partnership was
to be governed by certain articles which articles they
to their complaint that the association scpa-
rae ana us.hc ," any V,ne ana @ "a us
allegiance 10 any other body association that every
member Of the order has an equal interest in the
moneys paid into the general fund by the members;
that In case OF dissolution each member Is entitled 10
m equal share Of such fund; that such fund
Bists of nearly 000 that the same belongs to the
members equally share and share alike that the plain
ts duly elected trustees, and such have
troll and management Of such fund; that some Of the
members formed conspiracy, and, In furtherance
thereof served notices on the banks In which the
moneys deposited not 10 pay any OF tho to the
plaints and that by reason of the difficulties and DIS
putes existing among the members the association has
lost its objects and aims and dissolution Is therefore
0r Ss o. ana
for, with power TO divide tho Same equally
among the members after the payment of all just debts
and injunction Is also prayed for restraining the
defendants from interfering or intermedding with
dsposng Of the associations Debts Moneys properties
or enoctA Eleven Of the defendants allego In their
answer substantially the OF as alleged
In the complaint and allcge that the funds mostly
rents n a sSm ns nney pray OT the
that accounting be had of the property and funds Of
the Partnership that they receive their share inter-
est thoren and that they be allowed to withdraw from
the organization and organize themselves under such
name and rules AZ they shall deem proper. The other
twenty i've defendants raise quite different issue In
thcir answer thcy deny that the association is CO.
partnership, and aege that It s voluntary associa-
ton Of individuals pledged 70 tho practice OF abstinence
from intoxicating drinks and that il partly bcnevo-
lent in ts character and object and governed by
constitution general laws bylaws and rules OF order
which constitute the articles OF association between the
members They deny that all the members have an
equal interest In the moneys paid into the general fund
o. the association ana aege that y e trust fund Tor
OF its expenses, and dsposabe only at the will
OF the majority They aver further that the plaintiffs
regularly removed on duo notice as trustees and
that they longer such, that appeal been
taken BY tho piants such trustees provided by
the constitution and bylaws and that If they considered
themselves nggrieved they had three remedies by way
OF appeal First 10 tho Tent second 70 the high chief
ruler of the Ugh Tent third, 70 the High Tent ITSELF
aud that II the plaintiffs want to withdraw from the
association they at liberty to do So The case was
adjourned 10 next Monday upon tho application OF j.
julius Langbein counsel for tho eleven defendants
q the ground that he had only been retained tho ngnt
previous and as It an important he desired
listlc time 20 prepare. Aessrs. Henry Q Banks and
Stewart and Townlcy for the twenty i've defendants
ana George and J. G. julius LangbeIn for the eleven
doiendants
CENTRAL BRANCH UNION PACIFIC.
Troubles OF the Union Pacific Railroad and branches
are seemingly without end This time is the Central
Branch, formerly known as the Atchison and Pike's
Peak Railroad road Of 100 miles in length, starting
from Atkinson, Kan. and making bee line toward
the setting sum- but at tho end Of 100 miles coming TO
dead stand for the want OF further subsidy from tho
United States government, which they fondly hoped
would DO granted and enable them TO build and
meet with tho parent road at about Fort Kearny.
In Supreme Court Special Term, yesterday, the on
called suis known as ''TredwcIl va Pomeroy and
othsrs' but reality suit to decide the validity Of
the contract under which the road was built was again
foremost the calendar Judge Larremore holding the
court. determined effort was made the part VI
the defendants put II on the ground that Mr. Wal
den, tho counsel was engaged in another court Iheat
torncy tor the plaintiff then hastensd 70 tue court whore
Mr. Walden said 10 DO engaged, aud returned aud
informed tho Court that Mr. walicn not engaged
and that he said he would be hand In few minues
Mr.. William A. Beach, on bchslf oi the hNntn. then
stated the nature OF the suit the great dclsy that bis
client had been subjected the Inconvenience TO him
self tho Mtnesxea and all concernca Ia coming there