The morning times., 1896-11-17

Inc ueC1SiUn WIS dUUpuHCtu III thc ou'
prenle Court yesterday by Justice Peckha'n,
in the ca Sc of the FalIbrook Irrigation DIS
Lrict ct al, VS.. Maria King Bradley and
husband, appealing from the circuit court
for the Southern district of California.
Tie courts below entered diametrically
opposite judgmentS-thc circuit court !lold-
ing that the law was unconstitutional, and
the supreme court of the State holuinS that
it was constitutional.
ANOTHER CASE OF INTEREST.
rule was issued by the Supreme Court
of the United States yesterday, returnable
the second Monday in January, TO show
cause why writ of certiorari should NOT
issue in u California case, which has some
general interest. Edwin and Oliver w.
Norton sued William \. Wheaton FOR an
alleged infringement of patent for I'M
provemcnt in can-heading machines
decree affirming the decree OF the circuit
court in favor of the Nortons was entered.
The court of appeals declined TO grant
second reheanng asked for by The NoE-
tons, or grant an appeal to the Supreme
CourS of the United States. Whereupon,
they asked for n writ of certiorari on the
ground that Il final decree could not be
made by the court of appeals on an appeal
from an interlocutory decree of the circuit
court. Yesterday the Supreme Court,
without passing directly upon the questions
the writ should not be granted.
WESTINGHOUSE BRAKE.
Aboutthree weeks ago the supreme Court
heard arguments in a controversy between
the Westinghouse Air Brake Company and
the Boydcn Power Brake Company, the
Westinghouse people claiming an infringe
menB of their patent.
A full sized brake was exhibited in
the court room, and the method by wniCn
it is worked was practically eNemplified
by the use of a series of chambers Of
compressed air. Yesterday the court
ordered the case restored To the docket
for a reargument.
IL the people in Dane county, Wis, who,
in 1888, wanted to drain certain lands in
the vicinity of Madison, the capital city
OF the State, are still desirous of pro-
ceeding, they can do so, the supreme court
yesterday having affirmed the Judgment
OF the supreme court Of the State that the
proceedings under the law providing for
the appointment of drainage commission.
ers We're regular and the law constitu.
tional.
MILL MEN OBJECTED.
Tie proceedings were attacked by owners
of certain mills located on the waters 10
be affected on the ground that the law
was unconstitutional. The supreme court
said it was constitutional and tile case
came TO the Supreme Court of the United
States, which, OH the authority of WurtZ
VS.. Hoagiand, ia U. s. and the Fallbrook
case, affirmed the Judgment of the Wis
consin court.
Tie Supreme Court, by a divided court,
yesterday affirmed the case of Hill against
Corcoran, from the supreme court of COL
orado. Hill was the United States mar
shal for Colorado, and under a writ Of
attachment issuing out Of the United States
| court, had seized stock Of boots and
shoes alleged to be the property Of the
Bay State Shoe and Leather Company Of
Boston, Mass.
Corcoran, who was not party TO the
suit in the circuit court, alleged that the
goods in question belonged to him, and
prayed the leave of the circuit court to
determine the question of ownership in
the State courts.
BY DIVIDED VOTE.
Such permission having been granted
| Corcoran sued Marshal Hill in the State
| court for the recovery of the goods or thciI
| value.
Verdict and Judgment were rendered il
hisfavor q No HUI Wen to the supreme court
of the State with the case on the groune
| that the State courts were without iuris
| dictiOn to try the question of title to goods
| held in the Possession of IA federal mar sha
under federal writ of attachment
| This contention was orcrruled by til,
| supreme court, and the case was appealed
| to the Supreme Court OF the United States
| II was twice argued here and us the de
cision was by n divided court only, th,
| question involved, that of Joint jurisdiction
of State and federal courts over the sam,
| subject matter, Will likely come up agaiI
before great while for determination
| Present: The chief justice. Mr.. Justic,
| Field, Mr.. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice GRAY
| Mr. Justice Brewer. Mr.. Justice Brown. MIR
| Justice ShiraS. Mr.. Justice White and Mr.
Justice Peckham.
Nelson Y DUNCAN. OF SomerTiilc N J.
| was admitted to practice.
No: 35o-Fallbrook Irrigation District
ct al, appellants, VS.: Maria King Bradlc,
appeal from the circuit court of the United
| States for the Southern district of Cali
| fornia; decree reversed with costs and
cause remanded FOR further proceedings
| court. Opinion by Mr.. Justice Peckham
dissenting. Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller an,
| MIR. Justice Field.
| William j. Verdier, administrator etc: ap
peal from the court of claims: Judgment re-
| versed and cause remanded with direction!
to dismiss the petition. opinion by Mr
Justice Brown. Mr. Justice Gray did no
| hear the argument and took no part in tn,
| decision of this case.
No. 13-William ,Tregea, plaintiff ii
error, VS.. The Board Of Direc ors of Th
Board of Directors of the Modesto Irriga
ton District; In error to the Supreme Cour
Of California: dismissed with costs. Opin
| Ion by Mr.. Justice Brewer. Dissenting, MI
| Justice ilariaa, Mr.. Justice Gray and MI
| Justice Brown.
No. 3S1-John Brown, plaintiff in error
| VS.. The United States. in error to the Circui
Court of the United States for the WesterI
district of 4 rkausas, Judgment reversed an,
cause remanded, with directions to Sc
Opinion by Mr.. Justice Gray. Dissenting
Mr.. Jus ice Brewer, Mr.. Justice Brown AM
Mr.. Justice Peckham.
No. 21-Tlie Wisconsin Central Railroa,
Company, appellant, VS.. The United States
appeal from the court of claims; judgmen
affirmed; opinion by Mr.. Chief Justic,
Fuller; dissenting. Mr., Justice Peckham
following orders of the court:
No. 615-Carone N. Forsyth, appellant
VS.. The City of Hamm ond ct al; IN Otion L
agreement on the third Monday or Januar
next after the cases already set down 70
that day.
No. 63S-Edwin Morton ct al, appellants
VS.. Milton A. Wheaton. Order for a rul
to show cause why Il certioran should nc
issue to bring up the decree of the Unite
States Court of Appeals herein, that it ma
be determined whether upon a n appeal froI
an interlocutory decree granting tempo
ary injunction in patent case, the circui
courts of appeals can render or direct
final decree on the merits; said rule to
returnable on the second Monday of JaI
uary next.
No. 645-Tbe Louisville Trust Compan!
appellant. VS.. The Louisville, New Alban
and Chica 60 Railway Company.
No. 646-The Louisville Banking Con
pany, appellant. VS.. the Louisville, NeN
Albany and Chicago Railway Compan,
petition for writs of certiorari to til
United States circuit court of appeals 10
the Sixth circuit granted.
| No. S-The State of Wisconsin eN re
John r. Baltzeil, plaintiff in error, VI
Robert Il. Siebecker, circuit judge, etc
In error to the supr eme court of Wisconsin
judgment affirmed with costs on the al
thority OF Wurts VS.. Hoagland, 114 T. s
6o6, and Fallbrcok Irrigation District VI
Bradley, Just decided.
No. 9-zeph T. Hill, plaintiff in error, vi