The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1884-07-25
THE HARTFORD FURNACE HAREAA
CORPUS CASES

Judge Hugh l.. Bond, on Thursday of last week,
heard argument In the habeas corpus cases OF
Beckett and Geo. w. Peacock, who were arrested
a. hariord furnace, on the Tuesday previous
ior c2ntempt OF court In refusing TO obey an In
guncuon OF the circuit Court for Hartford county,
forbidding them from removing certain canned
goods from The Hartford Furnace canning house,
the goods being claimed by II. X. &F. b. Thur
Der, of New York, under a collateral note and
storage receipt, and also by Col. Il. n. Webster,
under bill OF sale and deed of trust made by
webster, attorneys.
?, Messrs. T. Wallis Blackstone and George
Bei All represented Thurber & Co. Messrs.
itenry W. archer and Archibald Stirling were
counsel Tor Collector Webster. D....s...
Judge Bond rendered his decision on Saturday
says: - 80
ton TO interfere with marshal of the United
STATES ~ ms execution of the process of United
,hta court. II under writ of replevn as in
Ihls case the marshal, by virtue of the writ seZes
property supposed to be that of the defendant,
which In reality is the property of another. il
Is not Wltnin the Jurisdiction of the State court
to arrest him for executing the process of the
United states Court, but the real owner must
come into the United States Court and by an an.
cllIary process nave his claim to the property de-
ternned against the plaintiff in the suit In whose
behalf the process of the court has been award
ed.
1T Is equally clear that no court of the United
states mas the Jurisdiction take into its possess
sion property which has been seized and taken
INTO tne possession of State court by any process
OF that court. The comfy of the courts forbids
any such interference between the one and the
other; but should the arise as II might do by
lnadvertence and the want of knowledge of the
facts on the part of either court it would not
give ne one court or the other the power to ar
rest the officers for obeyng the writ The parties
are 10 seek their remedy in the court whose officer
| Is alleged to have offended, but he cannot be ar
rested by any other court of concurrent jurisic-
ton. He would be placed in the SINGULAR position
OF being In contempt of one court for obeying q
writ, and of another for not obeying it.
| IN thls case, moreover, the property seized
under writ of replevin was not in the custody
| OF the state court. The fact Is, the property
| claimed in the replevin was In the custody of
this court and not in the Circuit Court of Hartford
| county, when the Injunction and writ of attach
Inent issued as appears from the evidence in this
| court now offered
But even If the marshal had seized and re-
plevied goods in the custody of that court by
virtue OF writ out of The Circuit Court of the
United States, he was not liable to arrest and i'm
prisonment for so doing The parties had their
plevn bond, or by any proceeding they chose to
take in this court. The deputy marshais must be
| and are hereby discharged from custody"
| Geo. W. Peacock and John Oliver Beckett, the
| deputy United States marshals, entered suit in
| the Superior Court of Baltimore City on Saturday
| against Charles e. Dickey, Jas. B. Smawood
and Charles H. Eickey, eopartners, trading as
| Dckey, Tansley Il Co., for $4,000 damages for
| false arrest. The defendants are creditors of
| Thos. Oliver, and had a claim against the goods
which the deputy marshas were engaged in re-
| moving on writ of replevin at the time of their
| arrest.