Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1882-08-23

e
En- mex time you hook water-miIions-yOu heered
me, you ign ant, you hunk,
Eff you do want ickin' all over, be sho dat dey
alters go 'spunk!' -HGrper'S Magazine.
RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS.
From Bradstreets.l
To Justify an attachment of personal
property the affidavit must show the ex-
lstence of actual facts within the know
ledge of the affiant; that he believes the
facts exist is not sufficient is the opinion
of the Virginia court of appeals, IN Sub
let VS.. Gary, decidedin March.
In order to maintain an action against
the trustee of a corporation on the
ground that he has signed false report,
1t is necessary to show bad faith and in
tent to deceive on the part of the trustee
IN the opinion of the New York court of
appeals, in Bonnell VS.. Griswold, de-
cided IN May.
A CONFESSION made by an accused
person, while he is IN prison, to police
officer, may be given in evidence against
him when neither threats nor promises
were offered by the officer to induce
confession, III the opinion oft the supreme
court of Louisiana, In the State VS.. AL
phonse, decided IN January.
A MARBLE slab put on counter for
the purpose Of ornamentation IS not a
fixture unless there is an intention to an
mex it to the freehold, and therefore it
will not pass to the purchaser of the
freehold by sheriff sale, in the opin-
ion of the supreme court of Pennsylva-
MIA, in Harmony Building Association
VS.. Berger, decided In February.
A BILL in equity asking for an &C
count of profits and an Injunction for
the infringement Of a patent, which
showed upon its face that the patent had
expired when the bill was fled, will be
dismissed unless there are such clrcum-
stances in the cause which render an
action at law difficult, inadequate or
incomplete remedy for the complainant,
in the opinion of the United States cir
cult court, at Trenton, n. j., in Camp
bell vs.. Ward, decided IN May.
An InfOrmer against persons violating
the internal revenue laws, under the in
ternal revenue act of January 6, 1872,
and the circular Of the commissioner of
July 81, 1873, is entitled to such a per-
centage Of the net amount recovered as
the commissioner shall allow and the
secretary of the treasury approve, IN the
opinion of the United States court of
claims, in Green VS.. United States, de-
cided In June. In this case the informer
claimed 10 per cent. of the sum recov-
cred, which was SS7. 050.23: he was al
lowed $4,000.
CAPITAL stock was issued to an amount
IN excess of the limit fixed by the char
ter of the corporation, and the corpora
ton becoming insolvent, its creditors
sued the stockholders, to recover the
amount due them from the corporation
under their statutory liability. Among
the stockholders proceeded against was
A, who held some stock which was an
overissue and some of the shares which
were within the chartered limit In this
case, Scoville VS.. Thayer, the supreme
court of the United States, in April,
through Mr.. Justice Matthews, decided
that the stock issued in excess Of amount
limited was unauthorized and void; that
the holder of such stock was not enti-
tied to any of the rights or subject to
any of the liabilities of holder of au-
thorized stock; that stakeholder of
both void and valid stock could not set
off the installments which he had paid
on the spurious shares against any IN
paid balance due upon the authorized
shares held by him.
A BANK In New York City lent one
Bogert $40, 900 on hundred and two
bonds on Bergen County, New Jersey.
The bonds were for $500 each and were
all countersigned by Borgert as county
collector. Iwenty-four of the bonds
were issued by Bogert while he was col
lector, and seventy Eight had been signed
by him after his term of Office had ex-
pired, but the whole number were an
over-issue of the authorized county debt.
The other signatures to the bonds were
those of the director and clerk of the
board of freeholders Of the county. who
had signed the bonds in blank and en-
trusted the seal to Bogert The county
fled bill in equity in the United States
Circuit Court, at New York-Chosen
Freeholders of Bergen County VS..
Merchants Exchange National Bank of
New York-to compel the bank to SUR
render the bonds for cancellation to pro-
tect the county from any claim upon
them, and got a decree to that effect.
Judge Wallace in the opinion, said: Al
though the defendant is a holder of the