National Republican., 1883-04-17

tloner should be granted and n peremptory
mandamus be directed to the circuit court to
vacate the order of expulsion and restore him
to the bar.
DECISION IN AN ARMY CASE.
A decision was also rendered by the court
to-day in the army case of Gen. Thomas ].
Wood, appellant, against the United States
Appeal from the court Of claims. The claim
ant and appellant being colonel Of cavalry
in the line Of the United States army, on the
active list, was on tho 9th of June, 1865
placed on the retired list by the President,
with the full rank and pay Of major gem
eral, under the thirty-second section Of the
act Of July %, 1866, which provides "that
officers of the regular army entitled TO be re-
tired on account of disability occasioned by
wounds received in battle may be retired
upon the full rank of the command held by
them, whether in. the regular or volunteer
service, at the time such wounds were re-
ceived."
Afterward by statute passed March 3,
1870 congress enacted that "all officers Of the
army who have been heretofore retired by
reason of disabilities arising from wounds
received in action shall be considered as re-
tired upon the actual rank held by them,
whether In the regular or volunteer service,
at the time when such wound was received,
and shall be borne on the retired list and re-
ceive pay thereafter accordingly"
. The effect of this legislation was TO reduce
claimants rank on the retired list from that
of major general to that Of brigadier general,
and the present suit is to recover the differ
ence between the pay he receives under the
reduced rank and that which he received as a
major general.
This court holds that the office of an officer
of the army and his rank are not necessarily
identical that an officer of any grade on the
active list may be retired with different
rank from that which belongs to his Office, If
congress so provides that this is not to ap-
point him to u new and different office, but is
to transfer him to the retired list, and to
change his rank while he holds the same
office; and that the pay Of retired officers as
well as their rank, is matter entirely within
the control of congress. The Judgment of
the court of claims in favor of tho United
States is affirmed. Opinion by Justice Blatch-
ford.
A decision was also rendered by the court
yesterday in tho railway tax case of the
Little Miami and Columbus and Xenia Rail-
way 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 suit brought by the
United States to recover from the railway
company tax of per cent. on alleged
profits Of the company "carried to the ac-
count of any fund or used in construction -
a tax authorized by the act of June 80, 1864,
The Judgment of the circuit court is re-
versed, and the cause remanded with instruc-
tions to deduct from the amount Of earnings,
as ascertained upon the former trial, the items
of So, 900 depreciation in the value of bonds
and 1925, depreciation in the value Of GER
tain cotton press stock, together with such
other sums included in the items of $50, 155
depreciation in book accounts and chooses in
action, and $106, ,014 depreciation in the value of
street connection track, as, upon further hear
ing shall be found to represent losses accruing
to the company between July /, 1864 and Nov.
80, 1869, and TO render judgment only for
such an amount Of tax as shall appear to be
due upon that basis. Opinion by Chief JUS
tice Waite.
A decision was also rendered in the broker
age case of John II. Rountree, plaintiff in error
against Ernest f. Smith and NJ G. McLight-
ner In error to the circuit court of the
United States for the western district of
Wisconsin. This was suit growing out Of
speculations in domestic produce in the city
of Chicago upon margins" IL was brought
by tho firm of Smith & Lightner, 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, &C., made by his order. Rountree set
up the defense that the brokers had not actu-
ally bought or sold for him tho COM
modities specified, but had merely specu-
iaVNu III OptlOho Ol ulb dCCOuuu, lHub IuCoO
"options" were nothing but gambling con-
tracts or bets on the future prices Of the vari-
Gus articles of produce to which they related
that they were not designed to be actually
performed by delivery, but the differences
were to bo adjusted and payments made and
accepted according to the differences between
the contract price and the market price at
the date fixed for delivery; and that finally
these contracts were illegal and void. Tho
plaintiff offered no proof that the par
ticular contracts in controversy were
really bets on future prices, but he
did offer to show that very large proportion
of all the contracts made by members of the
Chicago board of trade for the sale of produce
were settled by the payment of differences
that nothing else was expected, and that the
proportion ofsuch betting contracts in which
no delivery of the merchandise was neither
expected nor desired, was so great in com
parisOn with bona iide contracts, as to Justify
the inference that the contracts made for him
by his brokers were of the gambling kind.
This court holds that evidence of what other
people intended by other contracts of n SINH
lar character, however numerous, is not sufii-
cient OF itself to prove that the parties to
these contracts intended to violate the law,
or to justify jury in making such n pre-.
sumption. ut is also to be observed" the
court says, that the plaintiffs in this case are
not suing ON the contracts, but for SER
VICES perlOrtleu ana money advanced 1Or
the defendant at his request, and, though 1t is
possible that they might under some circum-
stances be so connected with the immortality
of the contract as to be affected by IL, they are
certainly not in the same position as a party
suing for the enforcement of the original
agreement. The Judgment of the circuit
court in favor of the brokers is affirmed, with
interest. Opinion by Justice Miller.
A decision was also rendered in the bond
case of Charles L. Lewis, plaintiff in error,
against the city of Shreveport La In error
to the circuit court of the United States for
the district of Louisiana. This was suit
upon the coupons Of a series Of bonds issued
by the city of Shreveport in aid of the
Texas and Pacific Railway company. The
court holds that the bonds are void
for want OF valid legislative author
ity that unless specific authority
has been given by the legislature to n muni-
cipal corporation to grant pecuniary aid to
railway companies, all bonds of tho muni-
cipality purporting on their face TO be for such
a purpose are void even in the hands of bona
| fde holders, and this whether the people
voted the aid or not. Every purchaser of
such bond is chargeable in law with
notice of want of power in the municipal
authorities to bind the body polite in that
way. In this case it is not pretended that
any such power was expressly granted and
there is no provision Of the charter from
which anything of the kind can be inferred.
Judgment affirmed with costs. Opinion by
Chief Justice Waite.
decision was also rendered in the case of