The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-03-01

clared imperative in all it's parts because 9
H part res'1 to re might
Govern NJ ent and produce the utmost coniu,
sion in the business Of the entire county,,
The judgments OF the courts below sustaining
the validity OF the act were affirmed.
THE IOWA BOUNDARY CASE.
Justice Brewer announced the decision OF
the court in the case OF the state OF Neornska
ing out, OF the boundary. between the two
Suites in. the vicinity, Of Omaha. Jnstiee
Brewer said the law relating to %ns that L
followed the line OF the centre OF the channel;
wherever y may wind by the Mashins scs ana
tion il applicable to the Missouri River. When
An entirely new is ma a ebs by Tbe
case cas- o was remanded. and a decree will be is
sued in accordance with this decision, II the
parties. can agree upon tho location OF the
channel: IL not Commissioners may Do ap-
pointed TO determine it,
THE BARBEp WIRE FENCE PATENT.
The validity Of the barbed wire fence patents
held BY the Washburnn and Moen Mannta . .u,r
Ing Company was sr P IL DECISION SI i6 5en
cases appealed by the Washburn and Mesn
Court. Two offences were made TO- the patents
in trials Of the cases below: tn-That II con
tanned new principle other pa, ents .aSnE
was not patentable for want OF novelty. similar
fences n"vPE tssn in e attsa
point af the @ Court 1'S' says: was open to
suspicion. and that while. il may have been
@ to tho ats HE ns the
made success out Of what had been y failure ,n
hitherto. As to the merit OF the invention the
court says the Held Is quite narrow. They yet
oelieye there was a point that was ratentabsIe
and this point he covered. Any doubt On t th +,
Ills favor. and they thsreiore sustained the
validity OF the patent The Judgment OF tho
court below was. therefore reversed. and the
counting by the defendants.
MICnIGAS's PASSENGER RATE LAW.
=, In the case OF the Chicago !arnd Grand Trunk
Railroad Company Against Thomas Meiimnn'
Justice Brewer announced the opinion 81 the
court that the law OF the State. passed in 1882
not Observation-Disclosures. In the trial Of tho case
below. sad Justice Brewer. tn. matter OF
ass nHs ha9
would not be- wise for the railroad company TO
change its freight rates. owing tothe piobahy
competition at Chicago. Upon this evidence
counsel asked the court below 70 charge that
the law was unconstitutional. which II refused
to do. Judgment affirmed.
AGAINST THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS.
The cases of the Chicago Anarchists. Fielden
and Schwab. who sought release from con-
were asked was. that 'Fieiden and scIWab
nois whom sentence Of death laftrrward com
muted TO imprisonment for lfel was pro-
nounced on them. The court holds that
sentence OF death was not pronounced on tho
defendants by the Supreme Court OF Illinois.
but was passed. when the men. were
present. by the criminal court of Cook
county. This rule Of common law that q per
son must be present in court and asked il he
has anything to say why sentence Of death
should NOT be pronounced applies. it is held.
only to courts OF original sdiction and not
to courts Of appeal like the Illinois Supreme
Court. Tho appellate court. the Supren"
Court holds. simply affirmed the deci sion Of
the criminal court and fixed a day for he exc
cuton. The decisions OF the supreme Court Of
Illinois and the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Northern District ~ Illinois.
when &c the cases came. are therefore affirmed.
LOTTERY DECISION.
The case Of Edward NJ: Horncr versus the
Clfited States was also decided to-day. Hurner
is New York banker who sold Austrian form
bonds in which there is n lottery feature. He
was tried and convicted under the Anti-Iot-
terry act. Aside from the question as to
whether or not the scheme comes within the
provisions OF the pt-Lottery act. a constitu-
tonal point was raised that. as tho letters
containing the advertisement Of the lottery
we're mailed in New York. Horner could not be
tried in illinois, in which State the letters were
received. The Lottery act made tho offence
triahle in either the district Of mailing or of re-
ceipt. and it was contended that this provision
violated the Federal Constitution. The court
affirmed tho Judgment Of the lower court in
favor OF the United States in an opinion by
Justice Blatchford.