The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-17
WASHINGTON TELEGRAMS
Interesting Legal Decisions by the
United State Supreme Court.
No Reshipment of Chinese Sugars from Ha-
wall to Evade Duties-Emancipa-
ton Day Celebrated.
UNITED s. rArEs COURTS.
Several Decisions of Interest to Legal and
Conn erciaI Men.

WASHINGTON, A pril 16.-A decision was
rendered by the Su preme Court of the United
States to-day, in the disbarment case of ]. B.
Wall, brought here upon petition for a
mandamus from tile United States District
Court for the Southern district of Florida.
Wall, the petitiole r, was disbarred and for
hidden to practice in the United States courts
of the district abo re mentioned for having
taken part in Ign ching a prisoner named
John, who was in Jail at Tampa, Fla,
awaiting trial on charge of rape. The
petitioner asks for writ of mandamus to
compel the United States District Judge to
restore to him the rights and privileges of an
attorney in said court on the ground that his
disbarment without due trial and conviction
for crime, was unconstitutional and void.
This court, in an elaborate opinion by JUS
tice Bradley, holds that while there is no
settled and infexible rule for the regulation
OF procedure in cases of this kind, the FEEDER
al Courts may, in their decision, disbar an
attorney who has been guilty of conduct of
such nature as to bring disgrace and scan
dial upon the court, whether he had been
duly tried under the criminal laws of the
State or not. The petition for
mandamus is therefore denied.
Justice Field read a dissenting opinion.
He maintained that while an attorney might
properly be disbarred for professional delin
quency-that is. for improp per or disgracefuI
conduct in his professional business or
business connected with or growing
out of his profession-he could not
be disbarred or compelled to show cause why
he should not be disbarred for an indictable
offense wholly distinct from his professional
conduct, and in advance of trial and conyic-
ton.
A decision was also rendered by the court in
the brokerage case of John H. Rountree,
plaintiff in error, against Ernest +. Smith
and M. G, Lightner in error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Western
district of Wisconsin. This was suit grow
ing out of speculations in domestic produce
in the city of Chicago upon margins" 1t
was brought by the firm of Smith Il Light
ner, brokers, against their customer, John ii.
Rountree, to recover balance alleged to be
due them on account of purchases and sales
of pork. lard, wheat, ETC., made by his order.
Rountree set up in defense that the brokers
had not actually bought or sold
for him the commodities specified,
but had merely speculated in "options"
on his account; that these ''options" we're
nothing but gambling contracts or bets on
future prices of various articles of produce
to which they related; that they were not de-
signed to be actually performed by delivery,
but the differences were to be adjusted, and
payments made and accepted accord
ing to the differences between con-
tract prices and the market price at the
date fixed for delivery; and that, finally,
these contracts were illegal and void. The
plaintiff offered no proof that the particul%
contracts in controversy were really bets on
future prices but he did offer to show that
a very large proportion of all contracts made
by members of the Chicago Board of
Trade for the sale OF produce
were settled by the payment of
differences; that nothing was expected, and
that the proportion of such betting contracts
in which merchandise was neither expected
nor desired was so great in comparison with
bona fide contracts as to justify the inference
that the contracts made for him by his bro
kers were of a gambling kind This court
holds that evidence of what other people
intended by other contracts of a similar
character however numerous, is not suf-
ficient of ITSELF TO prove that the parties to
these contracts intended to violate the law,
or to justify the jury in making such pre-
sumption. 1t is also to be observed
that the plaintiffs in this case
are not suing on the contracts,
but for services performed and money adj
vanced for defendant at his request and
though it is possible that they might, under
some circumstance, be so connected with the
immortality of contract as to be affected by
it, they are certainly not in the same position
as the party suing for the enforcement of the
Circuit Court in favor of the brokers is af
firmed, with interest. Opinion by Justice
Miller.
A decision was also rendered by the court
to-day, in the railroad tax case of the Little
Miami & Columbus q Xena Railroad
Company, plaintiff in error, against
the United States, IN error
to the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Southern district of Ohio This was a
suit brought by the United States to recover
from the railroad company a tax of 5 per
cent. on the alleged profits of the company
carried to the account of any fund or used
in construction"-a tax authorized by the
act of June 80, 1864, as amended by the act
of July 10, 1866. The judgment of the Cir
cult Court is reversed and the cause re-
manded with instructions to make certain
deductions claimed by the company. Opin-
ion by Chief Justice Waite.
Legal Decision of Interest to Railroads.
RICHMOND, Va April 16.-In the United
States Court to-day Judge Bond rendered a
decision in the case of the Baltimore & Ohio
railroad against John e. Hamilton, treas
urer of Augusta county and collector of
State taxes, who had seized the property of
the company on the Valley railroad for such
taxes. The case was before the court on mo-
ton of the Encouragement of Virginia to
quash the writ of replevin sued out by the
Baltimore & Ohio Company at Harrisburg,
where the case was heard few days ago by
Judge Hughes, and decided in favor O. the
Commonwealth Judge Hughes however,
in view of the Importance of the case, ar
ranged for a rehearing before the full court
in this city. This took place on Saturday
evening, and to-day Judge Bond rendered an
opinion in accord with that of Judge Hughes,
and fully sustaining the latter's decision in
quashing the writ of replevin. After the
decision was rendered, the counsel for the
B. & O. Company presented a bill praying
for an injunction upon Hamilton restraining
him from selling the property of the COM
pany in his possession They also moved