Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-10-29
IN THE SUPREMR COURT
CASES OF MORE THAN USUAL IN
TEREST.

The Supreme Court of the United States
today dismissed for want of jurisdiction
the case Of the Dakota, Wyoming and Mis-
souri, River Railroad Company vs.. Chas. D.
Crouch and Francis Seiberding. The suit
grew out Of the contention over the owner
ship Of thfrtyfour miles OF road between
Rapid City and Mystic in Pennington coun-
ty. South Dakota. Crouch and Seiberding
claimed title through the purchase Of me-
chanics' liens, and the state courts sus-
taaned their contention. Today's action Of
the Supreme Court Is equivalent to tho AZ
firmatton OF that decision.
The court decided the case Of Thomas F.
Wilson versus Gov. N. o. Murphy and Au-
vor of these officials. The suit arose out
OF charge by Wilson that part OF the
territorial funds appropriated for the appre-
hension of criminals had been diverted ana
used for the furnishing OF the governors
Office. Wilson instituted proceedings to re-
cover. as allowed by law. three times the
amount thus paid. The trial court. in Pima
county, held that the warrants were prop
court sustained that view. Touay's deci-
sion affirmed the findings OF the lower
courts.
The decision OF the court in the case Of
Ferdinand I. Eidman. collector of customs
at New York. versus Frederick B: Tilg-
man and others. was announced To-Day py
Chief Justice Fuller and was adverse to
Eidman. Tilgman was one OF the executors
under the will Of the late Frederick w.
Britain. and the question at issue was
whether he and his associate executors
were properly assessed under the inheri-
lance tax provision of the war revenue law
OF 1898 The United States circuit court
of appeals absolved them Of payment on
the ground that the repeal OF the law In
1902 which occurred less than q year after
Brittan's death. relieved them from re-
sponsibility. From this decision the gov
eminent appealed. The court was evenly
divided on the points at issue, but as usual
in such cases the effect was to sustain the
finding Of the court below. There was no
written opinion.
Argument in the case Of the Un-.n Bridge
Company OF Pittsburg against the United
States involving the right Of the govern
ment to compel the alteration of bridges
so as to expedite navigation. was advanced
and set for December next.
According to an opinion delivered today.
attorneys cannot be compelled to refund
money paid to them for the prosecution
of a claim against an insurance company.
even though the claim Is afterward FOUND
to have been fraudulent. The decision was
by Justice Holmes. and was delivered In
the case of the Fidelity Mutual Life In
surance Company against State Senator
Charles A. Culberson and other attorneys
who represented the defendant in the case
of the Fidelity company against Jennie
Smythe Of Texas. Mrs. Smythe held an
insurance policy on the lie OF her Drotner'
which was settled by the company upon
his disappearance, with indications OF
drowning. half the amount going to the
attorneys. The brother afterward was
found to be alive. and Mrs. Smythe was
ordered by the Texas courts to make res
titution Of the amount received by her, but
the court refused to make that order with
reference to the sums received by the at
torneys. Todays decision upholds that
finding. Justice Holmes said in his opin-
ion that it was evident that the money
had been taken in good faith.
The court refused to order up for review
the case of Alexander D. Shaw & Co. of
New York against the United States The
case involved the question as to whether
in assessing duty on imported wines al
lowance should be made for leakage. The
decision of the circuit court Of appeals
was favorable to the governments conten-
ton that there should be no such allow
ance and that decision will stand.
The court denied the application OF Rosa
M Cole and others for writ Of certforar1
in the case Of Cole versus the city OF
Indianapolis, involving the rights of the
city to control the works Of the natural
gas company in that city. The decision
by the court Of appeals was favorable to
the city, and the refusal Of the Supreme
Cours to bring the case UP for review has
the effect Of affirming that decision.