The New York herald., 1876-03-24
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WAsHINGToN, March %, 1876.
In the United States Supreme Court yesterday the
following were heard;-No 0. Walker vs. Sui
vant-Error to the Supreme Court OF LouIsiana-The
question in this whether the State OF Louisiana
or other state OF the Union has power enact laws
against discrimination account of color by hotel
keepers and others The defendant in recovered
ajudgment of 81, 900 against Walker for refusing 10
give him refreshment because he was a colored man.
IL is here insisted that the law OF the State under
which the proceeding was had is VOID, because II
trenches upon jurisdiction wholly belonging TO Con-
gress under the constitution and because IL aeridges
the privileges and mmunites OF cltlzens OF the United
States contrary to the provisions of the fourteenth
amendment Durant Horner for plaintiff in error,
J. Q. A. Fellows for defendant
No. III United States vs. Sandcrs-Appeal from
the Court of Clams.-1hls action 10 recover
bounty and for services a soldier the amount OF
S50s The defence that Sanders having deserted
he could not recover, although afterwards restored
with loss Of pay and allowances during tho
orably discharged from the service; could
he recover in consequence Of the joint
luton OF IS50 which provided that moneys withheld
account of desertion shall not be paid descrter
unless the record of desertion is cancelled the sole
ground tha, II was made by mistake. The Court OF
Claims held that the honorable discharge the claimant
purged his offence and annulled all consequences and
thai the JOINT resolution passed than three years
after his discharge could not be applied TO his
without giving retroactive eject il not intended
to have and could not have The government here in
sists upon the original defence; Assistant Attorney
and Durant & Homer for claimant
Schooner Maggie Cain VS.. Shakespear-Error 10 the
Supreme Court of Pennsylyana.-Ths a libel by
the plaintiff in error under act of Pennsylvania
lating TO the attachment OF vessols, against the
schooner then lying in the Delaware River to enforce
lien for ship timber and other lumber alleged
alleged TO have boon supplied for ber construction at
the instance OF the contractors for building the vessel
The Court below sustained the Pennsylvania act and
enforced the lien set up. II is here insisted that the
repugnsnt 10 the ninth section OF the Judiciary
act to the extent In which IL authorized proceeding In
rem against vessel TO enforce such hen after IL had
been launched, and aHoat in public navigabie
river and capable of being registered and enrolled
employed in maritime navigation and commerce. j.
H. Ashton for plaintiff in error Senator Bayard for de-
fendant
No 1s3 Meyer ct al vs. Artnur-Error to tho Cir
cult Court for the Southern District OF New YorkThs
an action To recover back duty OF ten per cent
white lcad oxide of zinc, orange lead and nitrate
OF lead imported by the paintins Of .er
August !, 1872 the defendant being the Collector OF
the Port OF New York. The Court below rulod that
these articles were manufactures OF metals OF which
metals the component parts of chief value within
the meaning OF the act Of 1872, under which the
duties we're laid, and Sustained the duty. The only
question here is whether the Court correct its
rulings this point the plaintiff error contcnding
II Is not Y. Hartley tor plaintiff in error; Assistant
Attorney General Smith for defendant
No lS4 Montgomery, assignee Bucyrus Machine
Works-Error TO the Circuit Court for the Western
District OF Missouri-Ths action by the as
sgnce TO assets Of the bankrupt firm OF Stew
arr, Porter Co, money alleged to have been paid
TO the machine works by OF preference IN fraud
the rights OF the other creditors The decision was
in favor OF the defendants, and IL Is here insisted
that fraudulent preference Is plain IRON the fact that
tho bankrupts bought machines from the defendants
and sold thom 10 other parties and within four tbs
before the nlng Of proceedings bankruptcy allowed
such parties pay the owed for the machines
directly TO the defendants Baker and Ewing a smith
for plaintiffs; BARLEY & Jenna for defendants.