Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-29

pay rent and the lessee was entitled to
have the lesser's covenant performed
within reasonable time, land the COM
plainant was entitled to a decree which
will compel said performance.
The court gives the lesser company
till the inst Of January next to make
adjustment and classification of its
bonded indebtedness, as stipulated
in the amended lease, and in default
thereof the complainant has leave on
that day to move for a decree rescind-
ing the contract of the lease, and for the
settlement Of the accounts on such
terms as may be equitable.
What the rights of the mortgage bond
holders against the lessee corporation
and against the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company were, independent OF the
question of recisiOn, the Court said,
was not involved in this case,
and no expression OF opinion about it is
made. With regard to the time when the
accrued rental, amounting now TO more
than S3,OO0,00 should be paid by the
lessee, there was no decisive expression
VI OHAhAOAAf buA az lllC IC1uCSk vi
counsel on both sides Justice Harlan
announced he would hear further argu-
ment on this point at Chicago on the
2nd of June next.
The Legislative Bill.
WASHINGTON, April 2S.-The legisla-
tive, executive and judicial appropria-
ton bill will be considered tomorrow
by Senator'S Davis, of West Virginia,
Beck and Window, as a subcommittee
of the Senate Committee on Appropria-
tions, and present indications are that
the bill will not be reported to the Sem
ate by full committee before Wednesday,
nor taken up for action by that body be-
fore Wednesday, The House has re-
newed in this bill the attempt which it
has made without success in preceding
Congresses, to regulate the number and
pay of the Senate employees. The SEN
ate will again undoubtedly refuse to
consent 10 the reductions proposed by
the House in this matter, which has
heretofore been controlled by each
branch Of Congress for itself, and the
bill will accordingly be returned to the
House of Representatives with num-
ber of amendments.
Supreme Court Decision.
WASHINGTON, April 2S.-Geo. Burt,
plaintiff in error, VS.. Maria NJ. PonjOnd,
in error 10 the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Northern district
of Florida. This was an action Of
ejeetment brought TO recover possession
OF two lots of land in st. Johns county,
Florida, which defendent in error claims
under certain deeds of conveyance and
by virtue OF alleged prior possession.
Among the errors assigned was the
ruling Of the lower court to the effect
that a certain Henry Holmes, who was
called To be a juror in this case, was
not obliged to answer any questions
his qualifications as a juror,
under section $50 of the revised statutes.
Under this ruling to say whether he did
or did not participate in the rebellion,
he was challenged on the ground that
he was disqualified under the afore-
said section OF the revised statutes, and
the Court Overruled the challenge. Up
on this point the Court holds that a
Juror is no more Obliged than witness
TO disclose on oath his guilt of any crime
or of any act, which would render him
infamous. in order to test his qualitica-
tiOns as juror. The questions asked
him, il answered in the affirmative,
would have convicted him OF
crime OF treason, whether pardoned
by a general amnesty or not. The crime
was one which, in the opinion of this
Court, he could not be required to dis
close i'm this manner. II he were guilty
the challenger had right to prove 1t by
other competent testimony. As he did
not offer To- do this, and as the jurors
was not proven, the
Court was not bound to exclude him.
As TO the ownership of the lots, this
Court holds that there is sufficient evil
dence of the prior possession OF the de-
fendant in error, and that she is entitled
20 them both.
Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
Justice Field delivered separate con-
current opinion with regard TO the test
oath demanded Of Juror Holmes,
as follows: 81 agree with the court that
the Juror Holmes in this case cannot be
required to answer the questions put to
him, but 90 farther. / do not think
that the act of Congress which, by re.
uuiring the test oath Is TO past conduct,
excludes great majority OF the citizens
Of half the country from the jury box,
is valid. In my judgment, the act is
not only oppressive and odious, and re-
pugnant to the spirit Of Ourinstitutions,
but is clearly unconstitutional and
vOld. As war measure, to be enforced
in insuryent States when dominated by
the National forces, the act
cOuld be sustained, but
after the war was over and the lnsur-
gent States were restored to their nor
NAL and constitutional relations to the
Union. it was as much out OF place and
as imperative as would be law quar-
tering soldier on every Southern man
house. Justice Strong dlssented from
the opinion of the court.