Evening star., 1897-05-11
WAS PROPERLY PUNISHED.
Supreme Court's Decision Regarding
Right to Preach on Boston Common.

Right to Preach ON Boston Common.
The Supreme Court yesterday sustained
the decision of the Massachusetts court
which punished Iinerant Preacher w. Il.
Davis for preaching on Boston Common
on June To- 1884, without a permit from
the mayer, Davis. claimed. that the ordi-
nance giving the mayer. control over the
commons and forbidding any public ad-
dress there without his permission was i'll
conflict with the fourteenth amendment
to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion
of the New York court in the case of
Thomas Bryant Phillips, the Englishman
sought to be extradited for forgery, etc,
remandng him to the custody of tine
United States marshal. The effect will be
to extradte Phillips.
The Blythe wifi case, involving the es-
tate of Henry 4. Blythe, the California
millionaire, was before the Supreme Court
yesterday. Attorney W. H. H. Hart of Cal
iforEia, for Mrs. Florence Blythe Hinckley,
who secured the Blythe property. made
motion to dismiss the case. Ex-senator
| Hunton Of Virginia, for the testants,
opposed the motion. and denied that the
case had been brought to the Supreme
Court merely for delaying the perfecting
of Mrs. Hinckley's title to the estate. II is
claimed by the contestants that as Mrs
HiEckley is subject of Great Britain she
could Eot inherit land in the United States,
and that a state could not enact law per-
| mittiEg aliens to inherit lands.
| The court took the papers and reserved
| its decision.
| Juctice Harlan rendered the opinion of
| the court in the case Of John ii. Stone
| against the United States. In this case
| suit had been brought against Stone in the
| district of Washington by the government
| to recover damages for timber cut or the
public domain in Idaho after Stone had
| been acquitted In criminal prosecution by
the court Of Idaho for the same offense.
Nk,aE E1ofo1 v,1n
| ecution must take place in the same state
| in which the timber had been cut, and that
| the criminal prosecution was part of the
| suit 70. damages. Both objections were
| overruled and the decision below affirmed.
The court decided in favor of the city of
| Defiance, Ohio, in the suit brought by the
| Wabash Railroad Company to prevent the
| city from changing the grade of it's streets
| the city council passed an ordinance per-
mitting the railroad company to erect new
| bridges over its tracks where they were
| crossed by the streets. and in 1893 decreed
| that the grade of the streets should be
changed to the level Of the road. 1t was
contended by the railroad that the ordi-
nance Of 1887 constituted contract be-
tween it and the city for the perpetual
maintenance of the bridges but the court
| held that it was rather a license than a
/ contract, that such contract could be
| made only by express authority Of the
legislature, and that it was incredible that
| the city could have intended to relinuuish
| the right to change the grade. The opin-
ion. delivered by Justice Brown, affirmed
that Of the supreme court of Ohio
The court denied the application made
| for a writ of habease corpus by the at
torneys for Charles johnson. under SEN
| tence of detth for rape in Indian territory
| 1t was commended for johnson thai the
| court of the eastern district of Texas had
| Jurisdiction over his case under the act of
Congress which provided that the latter
| court retained jurisdfction over all cases in
| the southern districtnof Indian territory
| involving imprisogmsst a. nard labor or
| death until September l. 1896. Justice
Brown said there was nothing TO show that
u demand for the surtthder Of the prisoner
| to the Texas court had been made before
The Supreme re cssprs' Il denied the petition
| for rehearing in the Missouri
| Freight Association case. =
The cNlrt affirmed 9the decisions of the
| circuit cart for the Circuit of South Caro-
lima in the Agricultural naIr' case fn
volving the title to- the Agricultural han In
! Columbia, sc. Edward b. Wesley of New
Yoik bought the property of the commits
| sioners Of the state sinking fund. but there
| and he brought suit against ]. e. LindaI.
| the secretary of the state, and J. r. Boyles'
| who had been employed by the secretarv of
! state to guard the property, to secure nos
| session. Lindal and Boy;es, in the loper
courts. contended that they were mere
custodians OF the property. and that the
state should be sued, but the possession Of
the property was given to Wesley This
judgment was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in an opinion by Justice Harlan who
held that the state was not necessa rflv .
party to the suit.
The court adjourned until the 24th in
| stant