New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-11-17


to the discrimination made as between railroad COM
ranes and other corporations in the methods and nsru
menalltes BY which the value OF their properly Is as
certaIned The different nature and uses OF their prop
erty Justify the discrimination In this respect Inc
judgments of the Court OF Appeals of Kentucky are AZ
Armed Opinion delivered by Justice Matthews JUS
tce Blotcfor did not sit In these cases nor take any
part III their decision.
Tho court also rendered decisions In public lana
cases brought UP on appeal the Judgment OF the
supreme Court of Dakota. The first tDefenDach ast
Hawke, wac an action TO recover parcel Of mineral
land upon which is built the city Of Deadwood IL was
entered at tho local land Office the 3lst OF January
1878 "a mineral land. which date tho planth PAID
for the land and received receipt The defendant IN
the action claimed that prior to the entry OF the land
under the mi neral laws it was appropriated as town
site surveyed laid ont squares and built upon, ana
county acting as trustee for the towns people entered
the lana at the land Office as town site, pad the V9v
eminent price and got receipt The principal question
involved ia whether title 70 mineral lana can ea,quFeu
tbe publ!c domain. The Supreme Court holds th0t no
title from the United ates to land known ut the TINE 10
m icr, land can he nc Guircd under the presumption,
homestead or tOwnsite laws. The mining claln OF me
pii na@sed IN him tbronb the paent had not issued be-
any paSSeu ~ 49, ILL., tS Ii'itii proceedings TO
enter the land as town site. The United
states had therefore nothing. to convey
effect was affirmed Opinion delivered b. J05llco
The other was similar its general features, the land
in controversy being portion OF Central Cy LawrchGe
County Oak. But in this instance the land had merely
been occupied and built upon, and not formally entered
at the and Oice by the defendants The Judgment ol
the supreme Court was aihrmed me court hoiIlns l'
mere OCCUPANCY of the public andSand making Improve
ments thereon 10 vested right therein as against
the United States or any purchaser from theh. .,.
The Court alsodoycIed its opinion In the case brought
by the state Of Alabama as riant1 aGslnst l ci,
Burr Samuel A carlton ana John De MERIT,
OF Massachusetts, John G. Stanton OF New DIX "nu
Daniel L. stanton of NewJerscy The deicndants were
the directors aud officers OF the Aanama HPu n@Ca
nooCa Railroad Company, The Governor Of AADama
was authorized by the state Legislature to indor'e the
first mortgage bonds OF THIS company 10 inc aount VI
$4,000 for each completed mile of road ana was 'so
authorized to issue S2,uO0o00 In state bonds qua cH
change them for an equal amount Oh lie Eo'npn, :!9
bonds. taking as security mortgage upon ahus
the company. The money rczcdn both cases was 10 'e
used only IN the CONSTRUCT non ana cqu vi
The declaration set forth that the defendants rauduh
represented that they had constructed certain us Oh
their road in Tennessee and Mississippi. when III Ict
they had in one case purchased am 0d roau' anu III 'c
other leased section cf road for which tGey were ply
ING rental and that the Governors Endorsement was
secured hy tins fraud. Also. that the defence ana thClr
sale of the state bonds received by Them The declare
ton forth in conclusions that by reason 81 wrong
ful, illegal aud fraudulent acts the company became
bankrupt and unable to pay the interest on It's Nuol7t
bonds redeem the state bonds. The STATE was mere
i - s'd IN. d4f,ndaJts dcmlirrcI lrucr-
oily TO the declaration. The court finds that the state
WA" ~ ,i i irc,,"if and ,ot The sotIry There was
no prcteuce that the road cost han tie value oi e
puiId he Toad o1hef funds belonging to the company
,st hJvc 6rcn ustd and ID was prorcr to treat tho
bonds as substitutes therefor. Tho loss OF The state
was directly attributable e. the deficiency m the Nnr
of the original security tn" Court is un'him"n-N oil
the opinion that the facts stated in The declaration can
not constitute sufficient OF action against inc o'''hu-
ants. and the demurrer is sustained. ,
The other business transacted by the court to-day was
as follows:
40 3--UrmlhIcy Tol an1 others Ilsrha in .rror rr'
thc tlr-t uoual Bans Of tuCfFn Do 'Il'j 10 ' .'
nos Judgment with costs and cause rc' lr!
WITH drcCuons 20 award Dc" ul"" 'ph.'" .' '..''''
So by Heau.rs and others, etc np.eHan'' ago. L1