The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1888-05-15
SUPREME COURT.
Several Important Decisions
Rendered.



| Rendered.
NO rkLRFaOSE REHEARIN9
The fsss1 Rrasd Tf<kes Case h Ds
etaeA-AnstAer Csse Was the On,
es~s setAe MasseiaNecey eaarrs
IN KestsEky.
WssHfssfos. May 1.-THE suprer
court today rendered an opinion sas
| tanning the decision cf the cour4 beios
in the ease OF Mshoa. appellant, vs
Abner yust,ce, the iaiser OF Pike coan
~. Kentucky. This is a an sppliea
ton for writ Of hsfeas corpus arisin;
out Of the celebrated Hatfield NcCoy
vendetta. asad is brought here on a
appeal frons the circuit court. whicl
declined 10 issue writ Nahon. VII.
/ is n citizen Of West Virginia. wss il,
iieted IN l6ee by the circuit court O
Pike county. kensueky, on thre,
charges of wilful and deliberate rnrr
der. Governor West. oi Virginia, re
fused 10 comply with the reqmisition o
the guvernof Of Kentucky for Mahon'
person. In January last. Phillips a,
agent for Kentucky and Others seized
Mahon in Wet Virginia, and foscihly
carried him into Kentue ky. Gov
ernor West, q Virginia, made a for
s.s' Ssa.n s, sssas :. ..,;;|.:,ss sassss
vas then made for writ OF habea.
corpus. Ii Is contendesi ON behalf oi
Mahon. that the act OF Phillips was in
violation OF the constitution withou,
due process OF Law. while the counsel
for the state OF Kentucky maintain
that the act of Phillips In seizing
Mahon was unauthorized. bur that the
state Of Kentucky was fully justified
in holding him when found within her
borders. and that the question OF how
he came there was not one to be con.
sisiered. Any remedy sought TO be ar-
piled, il was asserted. must he
brought against Phillips for tres
pass and not against the state
of Kentucky. Justice Bradley dissentel
THE PATTI TICKET CASE.
The court also rendered an opinion
in the case of George Benson, appel
late, W. Juan Navarro. a Mexican
consul general, and the Republic OF
Mexico. This is an application for a
writ of habeas corpus brought here by
appeal from the circuit court from the
south district Of New York. that court
having denied an application for n
writ. This court sslsfains the deci-
sion. This suit is known Is the Patti
ticket suit.
TALLY SHEET FRAUD CASE.
The court also rendered an opinion
denying the application OF Coy and
Burnhamer for a writ OF habeas cor
pus. These eases are better known as
the tally sheet election fraud cases.
and grow ont of frauds alleged To have
been committed in Marion county, In
diana, in the election last November.
Coy and Burnhamer were convicted
of completely in the frauds. and it is
eonfended ON behalf OF the prisoners
that the federal court had no jurisdic-
ton 10 try them, "a the alleged eiee-
ton frauds concerned only the county
ticket. and did not affect the eongres-
sional election.
The opinion was by Justice Miller.
with Justice Field dissenting.
CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD CASE
The court also rendered n decision
in the ease of the United States. appel
liant. vs.. Mclaughlin ct al, from the
circuit court OF the United States for
the Northern district Of California.
The suit was brought in this case by
the government against the Central
Pacific Railroad company, MeLaugh-
lin ct nj. as holders of patents on land
lying along the route of the railroad
between stockton and Sacramento and
claimed to- he part of the grant to the
railroad company. The government
claimed that the patents were issued
for this land by mistake. The mistake
was that within the exterior boundar-
les of the Mexican grant. known a.
the Moquelokmas grant, which formed
the basis Of the contest. The railroad
company contended that the eastern
boundary was only intended to 20 II
the foot hills, which would make the
territory described contain nearly
twice the amount granted. The
grants of that kind, ii was
explained, of a certain quantity
to he located in larger area are called
floating grants. The government con-
tended that the lands within the ex-
terror boundaries OF this state we're
reserved from sale or other disposition
being under examination in the courts
and that the railroad grant did not
take effect at any point within the ex-
terror limits of this Mexican grant. the
railroad having been located across
the grant This was true with regard
to the public reservations of lands,
such as Indian or military reserva-
IL al =. .
the Mexican grants of specific land
while they were under examination,
but the company contended that the
floating grants were not subject tn
this and hence they obtained patents
Ia the land in dispute. The court re-
cited that the eastern boundary OF the
Mexican grant was ~ the railroad
claimed it be and therefore
mot of the lands out ide OF it, ex-
terror limits and as to them the patent
was valid. Also that the law OF reSer-
vation aid not apply Ia floating grants
further than to Satisfy the quantity
granted and therefore the remaining
lands in iii pute were also free and the
patent was good a to them also.
The decree OF the court l. affirmed
and il is further ordered that this de-
cree be entered nunc pro tune rs OF
October IL. 1877.
Cases II and II involved the same
points as those Se: forth in the above
and were decidedly similar
Justice Miller announced the follow
ing order:
''lt il now ordered by the court that
all eases on the docket not decided and
all other bu iness of the term not dis
po ed of will he ard the same are
hereby continued until the next term
II this court"
THE rELErToSE CASE.
The court also denied the application
ior rehearing Of the telephone case
This application was made hy the
Peoples and Overland Telephone
who claim that prawhaugh
and not Bell was the first inventor OF
The telephone.
Justice Miller announced the opin-
on of the court orally. He simply
,aia that as none of the three justices
v ho had coneurred in the opinion of
thief Justice Waite. upholdiue the
Of Bells patent. had request
~ rehearing, and that a. IL wa a
.ettled rule Of the court not To- grant
-ehearingS unless this was done the