Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1880-05-17
Court in General Term,
OPINIONS DELIVERED TO-DAY.


To-day the applications OF r. NJ. Mckee and
y d. Faunce were, On motion of Mr. H. o.
Claughton, referred to the examining com
mittee.
THE REPUBLICAN BUILDING SUITS,
In the case or W. j. Miller, trustee, against
Hopkins ct al, Judge Cox delivered the opinion
OF the court: giving the relief asked. This case
arises out or the Republican building SUITS in
which, on judgments obtained against ". J..
Murtagh, certain cOnveyanceS were sought to
be set aside, and the principal question was
that judgment obtained by Cornish and paid
by Murtagh could not be continued for the pur-
poses OF trust. The court directed that a de-
cree be returned directing the sale of the prop
erty, and that the proceeds be applied to the
payment OF the creditors. Notice OF appeal was
given.
CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY TO WIFE DECLARED
Judge Cox also delivered the opinion of the
court in the case of TrueSdel agt Wise. in
which the bill is filed to set aside certain deeds
made mad to the wife, and subject the property to
the payment OF certain judgments. The court
SAID that the Indebtedness accrued In 1878 nrior
TO the execution OF the deeds, and they enter
tanned not shadow OF doubt but that the con.
xeyances were void. The court below had, hoy
ever, allowed bill OF review to be filed an. -
:lew OF this they Gould only ...ecrec that the l
oolveyances were void.
OTHER OPINIONS.
Judge Cox. in the case OF Jackson agt. Davis,
delivered the opinion OF the court, holding that
the purchasers are personally responsible to
compartments, and directing decree as to the
credits.
Judge Wylie delivered the opinion In the case
OF Davis Sewing Machine Co. agt. RothNell Il
Richards In this case the defendants were
SuretleS on guarantee of John w. POler as
agent OF the company, and he having failed in
the sum OF 81 400 TO 81 800, the company entered
suit against the suret1eS. The defence was that
they were never notified Of the acceptance of
the guarantee. IL would seem on first sight
that the plaintiffs should recover, but the Su-
p1eme Court had decided that it was necessary
Tor the party to give notice, so that the guaran-
tees should be In possession to take measures to
save themselves. The decree below was Affirm
ed, and an appeal was noted.
In the case Of Frank Jordan Judge Wylie de
liVered the opinion OF the court. Jordan was
convicted Of an assault and battery with intent
exceptions 10 the Cha &c or the court below d.
recing the jury to take In consideration the posi-
lions or parties rather than the testimony OF
these lying Witnesses The court thought 1t
was better proof that one party was retreating,
In the ball entering the back Of the neck than
The testimony that he was approaching. The
count affirmed the judgment below. In the
jury in falsely swearing in the Police Court that
ne had never been In the penitentiary or arrest
ed before. The question is whether his testimony
was material matter, but nothing in the
case shows What he testified to In Chief. They
were OF the opinion that the facts testified on
crOSS-eXam1natiOn were always material aud
that witness could not be allowed to draw the
line between perjury and honest swearing
They affirmed the Judgment below. Mr.. Cook
said that there were other points which were
not argued, because OF an tntimatiOn from the
court, and he desired an opportunity to argue
these. Tie court said Mr.. Cook could d lie his
motion.