National Republican., 1883-01-11
THE COURTS.
Cases Heard, Suits Fiicd, aud Action Taken
In the Different Courts Yesterday.
uNIrEn srArEs srrRrNE COUNT.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
The following business was transacted in
the supreme courS of the United States yestor-
day:
Admissions to the bar: A. G. Merritt, of
New Iorl, city; Charles A. Hitler, of Salina,
Kan; Martin l.. Clardy, of Pennington, Mo-;
r. y. Lamb, Of Madison, Wis, and Robert a.
Burton, of Washington, D. C..
no. ll6. Tho inhabitants of the township of
Montcair plaintiff in error, ". Charles Dana,
and No, lii, the same plaintiffs in error, VS..
Thomas Ramsdcll Argument continued by
Barker Gumntcrc for defendant in error in
NO ll6, and by John i. Dillon, for defendant
IN error in No. 1l7, and concluded by William
NJ. Evarts, forplaintiils in error.
Nos. 20 and 40. The town of Thompson, n.
y" plaintiff in error vs.. Orlando Pcrrinc.
Argument commenced by i. N Bangs, for
plaintiff in error. Adjourned.
MIR. pELz's ANSWER.
I'm the divorce case of Laura ID. Pclz against
Paul j. Pcl2, the defendant yesterday filed his
/ answer. lie denies that the petitioner has
conducted herself with propricty and managed
the household affairs with prudence and ccoa-
Omy, and at all times treated him with kind
ness, forbearancc and respect. lie alleges
that her conduct was in violation of every
duty of wife and vulgar and indecent in
the extreme, and on one occasion she informed
him he was stale, and she would enjoy the
carcssc5 of u younger man. The respondent
charges that his wife was cxtravagant, spend
ing large Sums on her dress and supporting
hcr father sister, and an incorporate brother
in manner far beyond his means. He states
that his wilC's sister treated him with
much indiguity, and he cites one in
stance where she put u purgativc into his
food. The petitioner, he alleges, although
allowed ample funds for the support of the
household, supplied the table with poor aud
insufficient food, and when he cxpostulated
with her replied he could take his meals else
where, and proposed that he allow her $50 q
month less for household purposes, so that he
could live elsewhere. lie denies that lie
Withdrew himself from the society of his wife,
but claims she forced him to occupy separate
apartments. lie rUtutcs the allegations in re-
gard to Mrs. Mccm, aud claims that his wife
hired detectives to watch his movements and
Mrs Mccms, and that an article which ap-
pearcd in the critic and which is filed rs an
exhibit, was instigatcd by the petitioner. He
swcars that his wife wanted 10 90 to Europe
Of her own accord, and after couscnting aud
having her tickets bought refused to 20.
A RESTRAINING ORDER GRANTED.
In the case of G. G. Duncanson against c.
T.. Walker and others, TO restrain the sale of
certain property, a conditional restraining or
der was granted rcturnablc on the seven
tccnth instant.
THE RULING OF JUSTICE MILLER REVERSED.
In the case of the phpniN Mutual Life In
surancc company against Albert Grant, the
supreme court of the United States has re-
verscd the ruling of Justice Miller instruct
ing the receiver to continue to perform his
/ functions.
THE RECORD
Eq,,i'B CduH Justice Hd0ncr.--Jamcs VS.. Can
/ nom reference to auditor ordered. Nacltall vs.
Nackall; same VS. Richards; time to take tesu-
mony limited 10 twenty and ten days respectively
| Pel2 US. Pclz; demurrer Oyerrued, answer within
! ten days. Wallace VS.. Hogan; sale confirmed,
! conveyance directed and reference to auditor
/ smith VS.. Burch; appearance Of absent defendant
| ordered Walker ". Boyle; sale ordered, W. f.
clerk directed to pay trustee fund in court SOM
crNillc vs., FHrmunt; demurrer sustained and bill
dismissed. Snouiller vs.. GrCenapplc sale ratified
/ nisi. Duncnnson vs.. Walker; restraining order
| condiiion0lly rcturnablc Jan. II granted.
| court IN Bdnc-The chief Justice. justices Cor and
JGm6S.-PhmniX Mutual Life Insurance company
/ vs.. Grant receiver ordered to resume duties under
| decree of March 81. Miller VS.. Baltimore and Po-
| tomoc Railway company; continued till next
! term. Wuggaman vs.. Randall; penalty OF appeal
! bond fixed nt $1,000 in ten days. Bryan vs. Nc.
/ Nance affirmed with costs. Bauer VS.. Tschlf-
! iety; decree to be submitted tomorrow. United
States, use, &C., VS.. Champline; reversed and re-
manded for further proceedings. Eilleen, use
| Nc., vs.. Glenn Falls Insurance company on hear
! lug. Assignments for tO-dny-NoS. &c. 81, IS, lOl,
! lO3, 1Ol, 1917, l0G, lO7, and lO7lG
circuit CoWt-Justice MdcArthur.--DOwer VS..
/ Lambert, O'lIac VS., Johnson, Young VS.. Van Ris-
| wick judgments Of condemnation. Daley vs..
/ Gore VS., LcilCh verdict for decudent tor Si25.
| Jackson ~ Co. vs.. SChulLc motion for new trial
! tilGu, Assignment for tO-duy-NOS. 30 277 G7S,
2I9, 2SO 2s2 to 2S9, 20l to 800, inclusive.