National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-01-24
THE SuPREME COURT.



ciaI Tribunal.
The only important cases decided by the SUI
preme Court Of the United States Monday were
the following:
No. 1gs, Jacob s. Merrill plaintiff in error, vs..
John II. Ticc. In error 10 the Circuit Court Of tho
United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
This was suit brought by Mr.. Tice against Mr.
Merrill for alleged infringement Of q copyright
upon certain almanac known as Professor
Tices Almanac" containing forecasts OF the
weather for the year. Tho main question pre-
scnted by the case Is whether the plaintiff was
bound TO prove, in order to maintain his suit
deposited with the Librarian of Congress
or in post.ollce addressed ~ the Librarian, ac-
cOrding TO the requirements of the law. This
court holds that he was so bound that he did not
acquire valid copyright until the required dc.
poslt Of the books had been made, and that a
mere memorandum of a clerk in the Librarian's
Office TO the effect that the books had been re-
ccivcd Is not competent evidence OF the fact in a
court of law; The Judgment Of the court below is
reversed nnd the cause remNnded. with directions
toawnrd new trial. Opinion by Justice Bradley
No. 1905. The County of Clay, Illinois, VS.. The
Society lor Savings. In the Circuit Court Of
the United Stutcs for the Southern District of llli-
nos. This was "A suit brought upon the coupons
ofn series Of bonds Issued by the County of Clay
partly as subscription to the capital stock of
the Illinois Southeastern Railway Company
and partly as donation To- that corpor-
alton. This court holds that the cou-
that where T EWHS Interest Ss' has been paid on
bonds for eight or ten years, as in this case, with
out objection, the county cannot then suddenly
refuse to pay any more Interest and escape liza.
bilty without setting up some more substantial
defense than that here relied upon. The Judg-
ment of the eout below is affirmed. opinion ny
! Justice Woods.
No II (originaD. Ex partc Peter NJ. Rowland ct
! al, county commissioners OF Chambers County,
! Alabama. This was petition for awrit of hubens
corpus To procure the release of the county COM
missiOnCrS Of Chambers County, who had been
/ fined and imprisoned by orucr Of the United
States Circuit Court for alleged contempt ia re-
D Uisiuu n sDppinl
the said court mad ordered for the purpose Of tis-
ying its judgment. The return Of the COmmis-
siOnCrs to the pcrCmptOfy writ OF mandamus set
forth that they had levied the tax rs directed, aud
had instructed the tax collector TO collect IL,
but that the latter hnd refused TO do SO,
for the reason that the law did not require
him to qualify and give bonds for the collection
Ofspeciu taxes. The United States Circuit Court
held this return TO be insufficient, declared the
commissioners to be in contempt, imposed u fine
| upon them, aud committed them TO prison until
/ such fnc should be paid. Their release is sought
BY the present petition for writ OF habeas corpus;
/ This court holds that IN duly leyying the tax and
/ putting IL into the hands Of the TAX collector the
! county cOmmssonerspcrlO med theirwhole duty
thatthcy were not proUery churgeablc the col.
! lection Of the tax aud could not be required by
mandamus TO compel tie tux collector to do his
duty If he neglected IL. 1t was in the power of Tie
Judgment creditor to proceed by mandamus
against the collector directly If he would not col
! lcct the tax but the commissioners could not be
held responsible for his failure TO do so. In or
dering the arrest aud punishment of the
commissioners for not doing what the law did not
require them to do the UniIed States Circuit Court
exceeded It's Jurisdiction, and its order is void.
/ Tic writ OF habcus corpus must Dc granted unless
the parties are willing that an order OF discharge
be entered without further proceedings. Opinion
| by chief Justice Waite.
No. 1910 The United States, appellant, VS.. The
| Pacific Mail steamship Company. Appeal from
/ the Court Of Claims. This case, which grew out
OF n contract for carrying the United States mails,
was decided by this court last term, aud is re-
ported in 1903 United States Reports. page III. Un-
der permission, however, which was given by the
ttfNNN tnl
decision did not cover, the United States has
brought the case upasain byappeal inan cndeavor
/ IN enforce u penalty against the steamship COM
puny for alleged non. .fulhilment of contract in the
case of one Ot its steamers engaged in carrying the
mails to China aud Japan. The court sustaims the
view of the Court of Claims that the question now
presented Is not q new one, but was covered by
the previous decision. The Judgment below is
therefore affirmed. Opinion by Justice Miller.
The other cases decided yesterday were:
No. 49, Matthew GOttiriud, appellant, VS.. Fred
erick Miller. Appeal from the Circuit Court OF
the United States Tor the Eastern District OF Wis.
consin. Decree affirmed, with costs. Opinion by
Justice Woods.
No 70 (original) Ex parte The State of Alabama
The relief prayed for in this case having been
granted by the decision in No. IL original, the
Waite.
Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
| No. 1li3. Logan o. Swope, plaintiff in error, VS.
Hiram "; LeilinSTel ct al & In error to the ,.; sn
costs. Opinion by Chicf-Justice Waite.
THE OTHER BUSINESS TRANSACTED
by the court was us follows:
! Nos. 1919 and 1850. Robert Grame executor, nnd
! Wellington Goddin, executor, plaintiis in error
! VS.. The Mutual Assurance Company of Virginia
! Motion to advance denied but leave granted tC
submit on printed arguments at any time during
the present term.
No. 957 James II. Simmons, appellant VS.. JOSEPH
Oglc. Submitted.
in error, vs. The Fourth National Bank of New
York city. Discussed per stipulation.
No 95S. j. Pope, plaintih in error, vs.; B. +
lAngford Arguments submitted on motions 4
dismiss.
No 696. Justus !. McCarty, appellant VS.. orlean
V. McCarty Dismissed per stipulation.
No 8iS. George w. Miltcnberger ct al. appellants
| vs. The LOganNport, Charlottesville and Southern
Railway Company ct al. Arguments submittedoi
No 600 The Kellogg Bridge Company plaintiff
In error, vs. Thomas H. Hamilton. Argument
submitted on motion TO dismiss.
No. 1854. Michael Mccormick, appellant, VS.. Johl
Jay KNOX. Submitted.
no 9O2 The Western Union Telegraph Company
plaintiff in error vs. The State Of Texas. Tn
question presented by this case, which is one q
some Importance TO telegraph companies, /
whether ajax levied by State upon telegraph dis
patches sent out of that State Into another ssuch
restriction upon commerce between States" an
upon the OF telegraph lines by the United State
US to be unconstitutional. The case was argued b!
| Wager Swayne for pluintin in error, and Phil
Phillips for defendant in error.
The admissions to the bar were as fol
lows; David d Shelby Of Huntsville, Ala
Webster, Of Springfield, Mass, and l.. Prentiss, q
| Cleveland, Ohio.
The Chief Justice announced the following ney
rule in equity: Equity rule 9i-Every bill brougll
by one or more stockholders in Corporutio
against the corporation and other parties
founded on rights which may properly be aSSGrtc
by the corporation, must bC verified b
oath and must contai an allegation that til
plaintiff was shareholder ut the time OF til
transaction Of which he complains or that III
share had deyolyGd on him since, by operutio
of law, aud that the suit is not cOll,l
sive one to confer on court If the United State
Jurisdiction of case of which 1t wOul
not otherwise have cogniZance. IL must also 81
forth with particularly the efforts of the punti
TO secure such action as he desires on the part
the managing directors or trustees, and If neces
sary of tie shareholders, and the causes of h
failure TO obtain such action. Adjourned Unit
Tuesday.
The white House Yesterday.