National Republican., 1877-01-20
THE COURTS.
supreme Court Of the Uuited States,

No. s4e Peter Melendy ct al, plaintiffs in er
ror, We. Wells S. Rice. This cause was submitted
| on printed arguments by Mr.. George @. Wright
Of counsel for the plaintiffs in error. and by Mr.
| Thomas ]. Henderson for the defendant in error
| under the twentieth rule.
No. $40. Peter Doyle. Secretary of State of Wis
consin, appellant, VS.; The Continental Insurance
Company of New York. This cause was sub
| mitted on printed arguments by Mr.. George B.
| Smith, of counsel for the appellant, and by Mr..
| VIM. Allen Butler, Mr.. B. j. Stevens and Mr. ].
C.. Sloan for the appellee, under the twentieth
| rule l.-.
= No; ets. George Chsrpenning. appellant, vs.
| The United States. This cause was submitted
counsel % for fhs appellant and By Hr Solicitor
General Phillips for the appellee, under the
| No. e5s. Hiram Barney, plaintiff in error, VS..
The City Of Keokuk ct al. This cause was sub
mitted on printed arguments by Mr.. George W.
BY M e. in9ersOi GF for sGe ths IN eT
| Tor. under the twentieth rule.
No. 900. The United States, appellant, VS.. Jas.
No. saL The United States, appellant, VS.. Geo.
No. eea The United States, appellant, VS.. Ed
No. 9ss The United States, appellantvs. Fred
No. s64 The United States, appellant, VS.. NJ.
Lynde. These causes were submitted on printed
arguments by Mr.. Assistant Attorney General
E Paine, for the appeIiees, M under the the 10th rule. a.
No. so4. The American Bridge Company, ap-
penant,. VS.. Max Heidelbach ct al, trustees.
by Mr.. Wallace Pratt and Mr.. G. B. Lawrence,
OF counsel Tor the appellant, and by Mr. X. Gro
lisT G for or! me S SSpReiees undstne 2Ssh rule
county OF johnson, plaintiff in error, vs.. Nathan
iel Thayer ct al. This cause was submitted on
printed arguments by Mr.. Nelson Cobb, of coun-
sci for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr.. Wallace
Pratt, for the defendants INFERIOR under the 10th
rule.
No. SAC. Mrs. NJ. E. Burke, plaintiff in error
vs. Louis Tregre ct al. intervenors. The motion
to dismiss this cause was submitted on printed
Thos l. Bayne in support Of same, and BY Mr.
No; Iss. The Consolidated Fruit Jar Company,
appellants, VS.. James T. Wright. The argument
OF this cause was concluded by Mr.. ]. H. B. La
trobe, Of counsel for the appellants:
Company of North America. prsintifi in error, vs..
Pbebe N. Field. This cause was argued by Mr..
John t. Bennett, Of counsel for the defendant in
error, and submitted on printed argument by MIR.
}. +. Farnsworth, Of counsel for the plaintiff in
error. d
plaintiffs in error, VS.. The United States. This
cause was submitted on printed arguments by
Mr.. Assistant Attorney General Smith, of coun-
sci for the defendants in error: no counsel appear
ing for the plaintiffs in error.
No. leg. Henry News, appellant. We. Jacob A.
GOn9Ter. This cause was argued by Mr; A J.
No; I7o. VIM. Bayne, trustee, &C., appellant,
cause was commenced by MIR. Thomas W. Hall,
Adjourned until Monday at II o eloek.
Supreme Court of the District.
Chief Justice Cartier and Judges Ohm. Wylie,
Hun phreys and Macarthur on the bench.
CHURCH TRoUBLEs-A PASTOR AND HIS FLOCK
LITIGATING OVER THE OWNERSHIP OF TER EDI- |
FICE IN WHICH THEY WORSHIP. |
NJ Thompson, esq, moved the admission to the |
bar of Mr.. Parkinson, Of Vermont. Referred to /
the examining committee.
Washington Market Company vs. SUNNY /
Motion to dismiss appeal by Mr.. Birney en-
District of Columbia vs. Key & Smith. Mo.
Starr VS.. Starr. Assigned for Thursday, JAN
uary 25. on motion Of Mr. Davidge.
cult Court.
Alexander ct al VS.. Bouldin ct al The COM
plainants sue as trustees OF the Third (colored)
they represent that organization as a church, are
entitled to al It's franchise, and especially to the
Of It's property They aver that for
as trustees thereof. were In quiet and
peaceable possession of the church building on
the corner of Eleventh and L streets northwest.
but that the defendants, by force and arms, in
July, 1867, took violent possession of the same,
which they have held ever since. The defend
church, and they were its lawful trustees. These
we're the main questions at issue in the case. The
church owed some debts, which 1t had given a
usual form for reaceable nossessQp Of the nreu,
ses BY the Compartments until default and sale
All questions as to the indebtedness of the |
which party represented the church and who
were Its lawful trustees. The court decided in |
favor Of the eomplainants, Juno 2, 1859, (Record,
P. 1872. and decreed that the complainants were |
The lawful trustees, were entitled to the present
possession Of the church building and property,
same; and if not done in one week, that writ
issue to put the complainants in possession. The
defendants appealed from this decree to the Gen.
eral Term, and filed a superdedeas bond. The
decree was affirmed by the General Term No
Iember n1b s isss, 2; 49, The defendants ap;
Supreme Court affirmed the decree. us Wal
lace, p 49, BY it all the real matters in Htiga-
lion were settled and determined in favor of the
The mandate was filed 18th day of February. |
sTS. Its decree is as follows: AFTER reciting the
lecree of the Special Term, and also the General
Term, It says, '.9n c9nsiderati?n where, i is
low here ordered, adjHdged and deereed by this
;ourt that the decree OF the said Supreme Court
n this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed
with costs. SC Upon the presentation of this
mandate the General Term Minutes 2, p. I4l,) |
the cause to the Equity Court for exc |
'ution Of the decree. The original provided for .
and state The indebtedness either way betwesn
he parties. Arriving before the Equity Court
he complainants asked the execution OF the de-
;ree. Whersupon that court refused the applica-
lon for a writ Of possession, and by agreement of
PARTIES, the reference to the auditor was extended
10 as to include the questions Of possession and
entail value Of the premises
The auditor filed his report on the 10th of No |
Tember, 1875, in which he allowed the plaintiffs
lain against the defendant BouIdin 10 the sum |
If e6, ,7iI.57. Exceptions were taken by both par
les TO this report. The Equity Court sustained
ome and orerruled others, and rendered q decree
IN the sth of May, 1875, IN. 10, p. 522) From the
iecison of the court in respect Of these exceptions
10Th parties appealed to this court. Pending this |
iecree the complainants again moved tbs court |
or writ of possession in accordance with the de-
rec Of the Supreme Court, which was again re- |
used. lSee last paragraph in desree:) The com:
his court as 1t was affirmed by the Supreme |
Court, and have fled a motion for that purpose, |
which now comes up for argument. Argued and |
unlimited. I. Wilson for appellant, and MeSsrs. |
Barrett and Jsrdon for defendant.
Police Court.
Before Judge Smell.
'ELLISG LIQroR WITHOUT THH NECESSARY PER- |
MISSION.