New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-04-17
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

| WASHINGTON, April 16.-rhe first decision
rendered by tue United states supreme Court to-day
In tie No original * parte j. ID. Wall This
petition by di,barred attorney for writ OF mandamUs
to compel United States District Judge restore him
TO the bar. ]. b. Wall, tho petitioner. was an
| attorney in good standing In Florida. On
| the 6th OF March. 1882. James W. Locke,
United states Dis rct Judge then holding court at Tam
pa ri =, informed mat tue petitioner Wal had JUST
par cgated IN the lynching OF man who was IN ail
Tampa awaiting trial on n charge OF rape. judge
Locke cited Wall To appear before him. ald the 10
Of March ne was dlsDltIed Tor LaVlHg Ihed rOt0us
mob aud assistc In taxing out OF the hands OF Jus
He pray The supreme Court OF tue United
for a uaudamus TO com the United states Dis
rict Judge TO restore 10 lm his nts and privileges
attorney Of the court IN tandiug ground
tina his dsb i'm mt upon mere Information and belief
the charges made AZ inst him ana wit olt due trial
ana conviction according 10 the laws Of the
State and Of the United tsiee, was unconsu
long aud elaborate opinion b. Justice Bradley tina t.
Il may general rule that previous elton
snOd be had before striking attorney OF the roll
ndiotable offence oOmmittei by him when nctng
ia bs character OF ut Orney. the
ble OJe. may occur In watch such requirement
would result IN allowing persons 20 practise attorneys
the administration OF the law To be excluded from sue
Many causes may operate to shield a gross offender
from conviction o. crime, however clear aud notorious
gu may be- The circumstances OF the case, aud
any IRON rule must determine whether and sen II Is
proper to dispense VITA preliminary conviction. The
pdtIdOn ~ denied.
Justoe Field read long and carefully prepared dis
senIing opinion IN " hich ne ainianed tuat while
Attorney might properly be dsUarred for professional
delinquency he cOulj not DO disbared for indtaOe
oneuCe wholly distinct from his professional conduct
and in adyanc Of trial and conviction.
decision was ano rendered by The court IN the Army
81 General Thomas j. Wood. appellant against the
United States Appeal from the Court oi CLAIMS. The
officers as well as tSeir rank is %atser
entirely within the control OF Congress The Judgment
OF tho Court OF Claims IN favor Of tue United Is
affirmed
decision was also rendered the railroad tax case
OF the Little Miami ana Columbus aud Xenla Railroad
Compdn, against the United States. The Judgment of
the circuit IL reversed aud the remauded, wt in
struotions deduct trom the earnings rs as
upon the former trial the Of $21. OC0 de-
pIeca IN the Donos and So collation.
stock, together with such other sums Included
IN the items OF $5l.1l5. depreciation IN book
accounts ami chooses IN .oiion aud $l0I,0l4 deprec
la tue value or ack as upOu
Their hearing small be found to rpresen losses rung
10 the company between July l. 1864 and November 30
1869, and 10 render Judgment only sucn amount
Or lax rs shall appear 10 De due upou tnaL basis.
decision was aa0 rendered by the COurC IN tho
Smith and IA. L. Ligntner. This was
u sut growing out OF speculations in domestic
produce In the city OF Chicago upon marquis" IL
brought by che firm Oi smith & Lghtner brokers,
balance alleged u De due them account Of purchases
and sales OF pOk, lard whea made his order.
Tho Court nOis that evidence other people III
tended by ouer contracts OF simar character not
efficient Itself 10 prove that parties To these
tracts intended 10 violate the law Justify Jury
III ihng SUCH presumption q" IL OBSERVED"
the Court says. "that the plaintiffs III this not
suing on the contracts but for services performed aud
money advanced Tor Lne defendant his request ana
though IL ID possible that they light der circum
stances Do cOnnoco1 with the iimoraty of the
traot to be- Affected by It, they certainly not
IN the same postion ~ party suing Tor the enioroe-