Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-05-06
SUES FOR HIS WINE.
Seizure 0. - spirits Leads to a $4,000
Damage Suit.
Opinions Handed Down Yesterday
I'm n Number of Cases-Causcs to lie
Qualify.
Qualify.

The United States Circuit Court OF Ap-
peals convened yesterday for its May
term. with Judges Con. simonton, ana
Hughes on the bench.
The only case argued was that OF an
action Instituted IN the Circuit Court OF
tho United States for the District OF
South Carolina by Anania Cautini' de-
PENDANT in error, VS.. Theodore 5. Call
lord, Charles y. Swan. r. llagan rep
per. and Charles IL. Mcdonald, pialntins
In error. for the recovery Of damages.
Mr. William A. Barber. Attorney-Genoral
Of South Carolina, argued the case for
the plaintiff IN error and Theodore IT,
Barker, Of Charleston, $. c.. for the de-
PENDANT.
The suit was to recover damages to
the amount Of $4,000. for the action Of
several revenue officers, who entered Ana
MIA Cautinrs place Of business and forci-
bly, seized lot Of wine.
The complaint sets forth three causes
OF action:
That the plaintiffs in error combining
confederatlng and agreeing 10 injure de-
PENDANT in error. forcibly entered ana
searched his place Of business In Charles
ton, S. c.. in violation OF MS rights ana
10 the injury Of his charac. r. and repu-
tation, and other wrongs committed, To
his damage of $1,000.
That the plaintiffs in error forcibly ana
ral!clously entered his place Of business
with an armed body of men, and with
threats caused him to open his doors,
and assaulted terrified, and overawed
him, and disturbed the peace OF his famI-
fly. and against his protest 'orclply ana
maliciously searched his house and car
ried away sixty packages Of wine. OF the
value OF S1H.75, TO his damage OF *lV'-
900.
The third cause OF action sets forth
that at the time his house was thus
forcibly entered his wife was in very
delicate state OF health, and that she was
so terrified that she was placed in a pre-
carious condition, and suffered much as
a result.
An opinion In the case Will not De rem
dered until the next term.
OPINIONS RENDERED.
The court announced its opinion in
the following cases:
No. 81. 4. +. Mcdowell. plaintiff IN
error, vs. the United States, defendant
In error In error TO District Court,
South Carolina. Affirmed.
No. 1s9 Washington Wallace and wife,
plaintiffs In error. ". Jacob McCiUng,
ct ais. trustees, defendants in error.
Error TO the Circuit Court. West Viz
ginia. Reversed and remanded.
No. ll3. Yellow Poplar Lumber Com
many. plaintiff in error. W.. S. f. Chap
man. defendant i'm error. Error to the
Circuit Court, Western District OF Viz
ginia. Reversed and remanded for new
trial
No. IN. The Phoenix Assurance Com
pany of London, plaintin in error vs..
Minnie Tucker. defendant in error. Error
10 the Circuit Court. South Carolina.
Affirmed with costs
No. l5i. L. b. Cook ct al. appellants,
VS.. George +. LasheT et ais, trustees
appeUees. Appeal from Circuit Court,
west Virginia. Affirmed with costs.
No. ia. The Peoples Bank Of Green
Vile. S. c., plaintiff in error, vs.. Aetna
Insurance Company. defendant ia error
Error TO Circuit Court South Carolina.
Affirmed with costs.
No. l55. The Excelsior Pebble Phos-
phate Company and Central Trust Com
pany. of New York. appellants, VS..
Joseph O. Brown, ct ais, appelleeS. APP
peal from Circuit Court West Virginia.
Reversed and remanded.
No. 162. Safety Insulated Wire and Gable
Company, plaintiff in error, VS.. Mayor
and city Council Of Baltimore, defend
ants I'm error Error TO Circuit Court
Maryland. Affirmed with costs.
The case of knights of Pythias VS.
Nm was. upon motion Of counsel for
I'M. placed at the foot of the docket.
CASES TO BE HEARD.
The next case to be called is that Of
First National Bank of Richmond VS..
Wilmington and Weldon railroad APP
peal from Circuit Court for the Eastern
District OF North Carolina.
After the above case is disposed OF
the next case 10 come up will be that
of Smith, appellant vs.. Glasgow Invest
ment Company. appellee Appeal from the
Circuit Court of the Western District OF
Virginia.
The following attorneys were admitted
TO practice In this court: James Davis
OF Wilmington. II. c.; George Whitlock'
of Baltimore. Nd; Theodore q. Barker
OF Charleston, S. c., and j. q. McCluer'
OF Parkersburg, w. Va.