National Republican., 1883-10-30
TIE supREMn COURT.
A Largo Number OF Opinions Delivered by
That Tribunal Yesterday.

That Tribunal Yesterday.
Tho proceedings of the United States su-
preme court yesterday were rs follows Ad-
missions to tho bar-Georgo II. Foster, Of
Cleveland, Ohio, and Charles Turner, of
Selma, Ala.
No. 81. Oliver Finnio & Co., plaintiffs in
error, VS.. the Rumford Chemical works, for
use of j. N. Payne ct al. In error TO the cir
cult court of the United States for the western
district of Tennessee. Judgments reversed,
with costs, and cause romanded with direc-
tions to award a new trial. Opinion by Mr..
Justice Blatchford.
No. 35. w. D.. Porter, assignee, &C., plain
tiff in error Vs. Charlotte o. Lazear. In error
to the supreme court of the state of Pennsyl-
vania. Judgment affirmed with costs. Opin-
ion of Mr.. Justice Gray.
No. 10. Augustus Laver, appellant, VS.. Rob
ert bennett ct al, &c. Appeal from the
circuit court of the United States for the dis
trict of California. Decree affirmed with
costs. Opinion by Mr.. Justice Matthews.
No. 90. Wendell X. King, appellant, VS..
August Gallein. Appeal from tho circuit
court of the United States for the eastern
district of Wisconsin. This was suit for
infringement of patent on "baled plaster
ing hair issued to the appellantW. Il. King,
June 90, 1874. The court holds that the
article of manufacture described in the
specification and the claim of the complain
ants patent does not ombody an invention,
and that tho patent is for that reason void.
The decree Of the circuit court is affirmed,
with costs. Opinion by Justice Woods.
No. 43. Robert Q. Hewott, appellant, VS..
Peter Campbell Appeal from supreme court
of the District of Columbia. Decree affirmed,
with costs. Opinion by Justice Harlan.
No. 925. The county Of Greene, plaintiff in
error, VS.. John Conners. In error to the
circuit court of the United States for the
western district of Missouri. Judgment af-
frmed, with costs and interest. Opinion by
Justice Bradley.
No. 10. Sarah B. Haskins, appellant, VS..
The St. Louis and Southeastern Railroad
company (consolidated), and James II. Will
son, receiver Of said company. Appeal from
the circuit court of the United States for the
middle district of Tennessee. Dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. Opinion by Chief JUS
tice Waite.
No. 81. The City of Opelika, plaintiff in
error, vs. Richard c. Daniel. In error to the
circuit court of tho United States for the
middle district of Alabama. Dismissed for
the want of jurisdiction. Opinion by Chief
Justice Waite.
Nos. sos and 500. Benjamin F. Lee, plain.
tiff in error, vs. Francis f. Morton ct al. Mo-
tions to advance under thirty-second rule
granted.
No. 11S6. Fannie p. Lawrence ct al, plain
tifs in error, VS.. Ferdinand Pers. In error
to the supreme court of state of California
Docketed and dismissed with costs.
ENo. 500 Sarah L. Johnstone ct al, appel
lants VS.. The Robinson Consolidated Mining
company ct al. Appeal from the circuit court
of the United States for the district Of Colo
RADIO. Dismissed with costs.
No. 11S7. w. w. Brown ct al, plaintiffs in
error, VS.. r. S. Carey. In error to the SUI
preme court of state of California. Docketed
and dismissed with costs.
No. 100. The Alabama Gold Life Insurance
company, plaintiff in error VS.. Mary Alice
Nichols in her own right and as guardian,
&c. Motion to dismiss submitted,
| No. 214 VIM. L. Ward ct al, appellants, VS.
George w. Berlin. Motion to dismiss sub.
| mitted. -.tt. neaf'r.
No. o (original). Ex parte. In the matter Of
Harriet A. Mead, executrix, &C., petitioner
Leave granted to file petition for writ o.
mandamus, and motion for rule to show cause
submitted.
No. 11ss James G. Gray, appellant, VS.
Alexander Caskey. Appeal from the circuit
court Of the United States for the western
district of Pennsylvania. Docketed and dis
missed with costs.
No. 81. The United States, to use of N
Wilson, administrator, &C., plaintiff in error
VS.. David Walker. Argument concluded.
No. So. VIM. Bailey ct al, appellants, VS.
! Tho United States. Submitted.
No. II. The Dubuque and Sioux City Rail
road company ct al, plaintiffs in error, vs.
The Des Moinos Valley Railroad company
Argument commenced. Adjourned.