The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-14

| elsded not to make such recommendation,
but leave the matter to congress. For the
past few years each successive post
msster-general from Creswe down to
NJ wizard has recommended postal savings
| hrrSs, but congress never took kindly to
.lssitea. Tire time foi such banks, in the
| opinion Of a post-office official, who has
strongly advocated them, is now
past. A postal savings bank
system presupposes a permanent national
debt, that savings deposited may find in
vestment for which the government is re-
| Sponsible. In fifteen years, at the present
rate of paying off the debt, there will be no
| government bonds in the market, and
hence no basis upon which to build pos
tai savings bank.
| JOHN l.. SULLIVAN,
prize tighter, is in the city. He says the only
possible hitch in the preliminaries
for the proposed fight with Allen
| is the selection of place. Allen
iavors Louisiana, but Sullivan says
he is convinced from his experience dur
ing his fight with Paddy Ryan that law
would be promptly passed by the state
legislature, which would lead to the
arrest and incarceration of the principals in
the penitentiary. lie maintains hat the fight
should take place in Leadville or some
other Colorado town. or in the Indian Ter
ritory. Still he is willing to fight in any OF
| the new states or territories where il would
not involve violation of the law.
STANLEY MATTHEWS DECIDES A CASE.
A decision was rendered Ly the supreme
| court in the case of Eliza ID.
| Prtchard, cSecutrix, etc, plain.
tilt in error. VS.. Il. Norton, in error,
to the circuit court Of the United States
for the district OF Louisiana. The question
presented by this case is whether an in
Identifying bond, in the nature of n collat-
eral obligation, given in state of New York
by resident OF that state and containing
no stipulation as to the place of payment is
to have its binding force and legal effect de-
termined by the law of that
state. Pritchard sued Norton on
the ground of indemnity given
by the latter in New York. Norton set up
the defense that the bond was executed
and delivered in New York without
any consideration, and that by
the laws OF that state bonds
given without consideration are void.
The court held that for error in its rulings
on this point, judgment OF the circuit court
IS reversed and new trial granted. Opin-
ion by Justice Matthews.
GOING TO GIVE HIN SHOW.
District Commissioner Morgan returned
| w wv OiNy WIS InuIDlUp, III referring TO
the attorney-gcneral' demand for the dis.
| missal q Detective Miller, who has been
charged with certain acts against the GOV.
eminent in the starroute trial, he said the
charges will be treated the same as if pre-
terred by any one else The commissioner
| added that the case will have to come be-
fore the Trial board in the usual course, and
that Miller would be allowed representa-
ton by counsel
| THE CURTIS CASE.
The supreme court did not decide the
| Curtis case, but it has become known that
the decision when rendered will affirm the
| Judgment below against Curtis.
WANT THE CASE REopENED.
In the case of the City of New Orleans VS..
the New Orleans, Mobile a. Texas com
| pany which was dismissed in the United
States supreme court by stipulation short
time since, a petition was filed to-day by
the board of liquidation of the city debt
| asking leave to prosecute an appeal in he.
half Of the bondholders, and have set aside
! the dismissal agreed upon by original
parties.