United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896)
Case details
Citation
163 U.S. 662
Full caption
UNITED STATES v. BALL.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 25, 1896
UNITED STATES v. BALL.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
No. 461. Argued March 25, 1896. — Decided May 25,1896.
A general verdict of acquittal, in a court having jurisdiction of the cause and of the defendant, upon the issue of not guilty to an indictment undertaking to charge murder, and not objected to before verdict as insufficient in that respect, is a bar to a subsequent indictment against him for the same killing.
A verdict in a case submitted to the jury on Saturday may be received and the jury discharged on Sunday.
A defendant in a criminal case, who procures a verdict and judgment against him to be set aside by the court, may be tried anew upon the same or another indictment for the same offence of which he was convicted.
Whether defendants jointly indicted shall be tried together or separately rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.
After a witness in support of a prosecution has testified, on cross-examination, that he had, at his own expense, employed another attorney to assist the attorney for the government, the question “ How much do you pay him ? ” may be excluded as immaterial.
Upon a trial for murder by shooting, in different parts of the body, with a gun loaded with buckshot, and after the introduction of conflicting evidence upon the question whether a gun found in the defendant’s possession would scatter buckshot, it is within the discretion of the court to decline to permit the gun to be taken out and shot off, in the presence of a deputy marshal, in order to test how it threw such shot.
An indictment for murder, which alleges that A, at a certain time and place, by shooting with a loaded gun, Inflicted upon the body of B “a mortal wound, of which mortal wound the said B did languish, and languishing did then and there instantly die,” unequivocally alleges that B died of the mortal wound Inflicted by A, and that B died at the time and place j at which the mortal wound was inflicted.
The court is not bound, as matter of law, to set aside a verdict of guilty in a capital case, because no special oath was administered to the officer in charge of the jury, if he was a deputy marshal who had previously taken the oath of office, and no objection to his taking charge of the jury without a new oath was made at any stage of the trial, and the jury were duly cautioned by the court not to separate or to allow any other person to talk with them about the case, and there is nothing tending to show that the jury were exposed to any influence that might interfere with the impartial performance of their duties or prejudice the defendant.
This was an indictment for murder, returned at April term, 1891, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. H. Smith for plaintiffs in error. Mr. J. C. Hodges and Mr. A. J. Nichols were on his brief.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendants in error.
Mr . Justic e Gray delivered the opinion of the court.
At October term, 1889, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas, the grand jury-returned an indictment against Millard Fillmore Ball, John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell, for the murder of William T. Box, alleging that the defendants, being white men and not Indians, on June 26,1889, in Pickens county, in the Chickasaw Nation, in the Indian Territory, did unlawfully and feloniously, and with their malice aforethought, and with a deadly weapon, to wit, a gun, held in their hands, and loaded and charged with gunpowder and leaden balls, make an assault upon the body of William T. Box, and “ did shoot off and discharge the contents of said gun in and upon the body of said William T. Box, inflicting thereon ten mortal wounds, of which mortal wounds the said William T. Box did languish, and languishing did die.”
Upon that indictment, the three defendants were arraigned, and pleaded not guilty, and were tried together upon the issues so joined. The trial began on Wednesday, October 30, p. 6641889, and proceeded from day to day until Saturday, November 2, when the jury retired to consider of their verdict, and no verdict having been returned at the usual hour of adjournment, the court was kept open to receive the verdict. On Sunday, November 3, 1889, the jury returned a verdict as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendants J. 0. Ball and R. E. Boutwell guilty, as charged in this indictment; and we find M. Fillmore Ball not guilty.” The court, on the same day, made the following order: “ It is therefore considered by the court that the defendants J. 0. Ball and R. E. Boutwell are guilty, as charged in the indictment herein, and as found by the jury; and it is ordered that they be remanded to the custody of the marshal, and be by him committed to the county jail of Lamar county, to await the judgment and sentence of the court. It is further ordered that the defendant M. F. Ball be discharged and go hence without day.”
Afterwards, at the same term, John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell were adjudged guilty and sentenced to death, and sued out a writ of error from this court; and in the assignment of errors filed by them in the Circuit Court, (as appears by the record transmitted to this court in that case,) specified, among other things, “ because no legal indictment was returned into court against respondents,” in that the indictment on which they were tried “ nowhere alleges when and where said William T. Box died ; ” and “ for the errors stated and apparent upon the record herein, respondents pray that the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.” And the brief then filed in their behalf concluded by submitting that ithe judgment ought to be reversed, and the indictment dismissed.
Upon that writ of error, this court, at October term, 1890, held that that indictment, although sufficiently charging an assault, yet, by reason of failing to aver either the time or the place of the death of Box, was fatally defective, and would not support a sentence for murder ; and therefore reversed the judgments against John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell, and remanded the case with directions to quash the indictment, and to take such further proceedings in relation to them as to p. 665justice might appertain. Ball v. United States, 140 U. S. 118, 136.
At April term, 1891, of the Circuit Court, that indictment was dismissed; and the grand jury returned against all three defendants a new indictment, (being the one now before the court,) like the former one, except that, after charging the assault, with malice aforethought, and with a loaded gun, upon Box on June 26, 1889, in Pickens county in the Indian Territory, it went on to charge that the three defendants “ did then and there shoot off and discharge the contents of said gun at, in and upon the body of said William T. Box, inflicting thereon a mortal wound, of which mortal wound the said William T. Box did languish, and languishing did then and there instantly die, and did then and there die within a year and a day after the infliction of the said mortal wound as aforesaid.”
To this indictment the defendant Millard F. Ball filed a plea of former jeopardy and former acquittal, relying upon the trial, the verdict of acquittal, and the order of the court for his discharge, upon the former indictment ; a certified copy of the record of the proceedings upon which was annexed to and made part of his plea.
The defendants John C. Ball and Boutwell filed a plea of former jeopardy, by reason of their trial and conviction upon the former indictment, and of the dismissal of that indictment.
Both those pleas were overruled by the court, and the three defendants then severally pleaded not guilty.
At the trial, it appeared that William T. Box was killed on June 26, 1889 ; the defendants offered in evidence the record of the proceedings upon the former indictment; and it was admitted by all parties that the offence charged in the former indictment and that charged in the present indictment was one and the same transaction and offence, to wit, the killing of Box by the three defendants; that the defendants in the two indictments were the same persons ; and that no writ of error was ever sued out upon the judgment or order entered upon the former indictment as to Millard F. Ball.
The Circuit Court, among other instructions, instructed the jury to find against both pleas of former jeopardy, because p. 666this court had decided that the former indictment was insufficient as an indictment for murder. The jury, returned a verdict of guilty of murder against all three defendants ; each of them was adjudged guilty accordingly, and sentenced to death ; and thereupon they sued out this writ of error.
The first matter to be considered is the effect of the acquittal of Millard F. Ball by the jury upon the trial of the former indictment.
In England, an acquittal upon an indictment so defective that, if it had been objected to at the trial, or by motion in arrest of judgment, or by writ of error, it would not have supported any conviction or sentence, has generally been considered as insufficient to support a plea of former acquittal. 2 Hale P. C. 248, 394; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 35, § 8; 1 Stark. Crim. Pl. (2d ed.) 320 ; 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 458 ; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. (19th ed.) 143; 1 Russell on Crimes, (6th ed.) 48. And the general tendency of opinion in this country has been to the same effect. 3 Greenl. Ev. § 35 ; 1 Bishop’s Crim. Law, § 1021, and cases there cited.
The foundation of that doctrine is Vaux's case, 4 Rep. 44, in which William Vaux, being duly indicted for the murder of Nicholas Ridley by persuading him to drink a poisoned potion, pleaded a former acquittal, the record of which set forth a similar indictment alleging that Ridley, not knowing that the potion was poisoned, but confiding in the persuasion of Vaux, took and drank (without saying “ took and drank said potion ”); a plea of not guilty; a special verdict, finding that Ridley was killed by taking the poison, and that Vaux was not present when he took it; and a judgment rendered thereon that the poisoning of Ridley and persuading him to take the poison, as found by the verdict, was not murder, and that the defendant go without day — eat sine die. Upon a hearing on the plea of autrefois acquit, the Court of Queen’s Bench was of opinion that Vaux was a principal, although not present when Ridley took the poison; but that the indictment was insufficient, for not expressly alleging that Ridley drank the poison; and that “ because the indictment in this case was insufficient, for this reason he was not legitimo p. 667modo a cquietatu s” “nor was the life of the party, in the judgment of the law, ever in jeopardy.”
Yet the decision in Vaux's case was treated, both by Lord Coke and by Lord Hale, as maintainable only upon the ground that the judgment upon the first indictment was quod eat sine die, which might be given as well for the insufficiency of the indictment, as for the defendant’s not being guilty of the offence; and Lord Hale was clearly of opinion that a judgment quod eat inde quietus could not go to the insufficiency of the indictment, but must go to the matter of the verdict, and would be a perpetual discharge. 3 Inst. 214; 2 Hale P. C. 394, 395. And Mr. Starkie has observed: “ The doctrine expounded in this case does not appear to consist with the general principle on which the plea of autrefois acquit is said to depend, since an acquittal upon a special verdict would leave the defendant exposed to a second prosecution, whenever a formal flaw could be detected in the first indictment at any subsequent period.” 1 Stark. Crim. Pl. 320, note.
In the leading American case of People v. Barrett, 1 Johns. 66, while a majority of the court, consisting of Chief Justice Kent and Justices Thompson and Spencer, followed the English authorities, Justices Livingston and Tompkins strongly dissented, and their reasons were fully stated by Mr. Justice Livingston, who, after distinguishing cases in which upon the first trial there had been no general verdict of acquittal by the jury, but only a special verdict, upon which the court had discharged the defendant, as well as cases in which the defendant himself had suggested the imperfection in the first indictment, and thereupon obtained judgment in his favor, said : “ These defendants have availed themselves of no such imperfection, if any there were, nor has any judgment to that effect been pronounced. This ease, in short, presents the novel and unheard of spectacle, of a public officer, whose business it was to frame a correct bill, openly alleging his own inaccuracy or neglect, as a reason for a second trial, when it is not pretended that the merits were not fairly in issue on the first. That a party shall be deprived of the benefit of an acquittal by a jury, on a suggestion of this kind, coming too from the officer p. 668who drew the indictment, seems not to comport with that universal and humane principle of criminal law, ‘ that no man shall be brought into danger more than once for the same offence.’ It is very like permitting a party to take advantage of his own wrong. If this practice be tolerated, when are trials of the accused to end ? If a conviction take place, whether an indictment be good, or otherwise, it is ten to one that judgment passes ; for, if he read the bill, it is not probable he will have penetration enough to discern its defects. His counsel, if any be assigned to him, will be content with hearing the substance of the charge without looking farther; and the court will hardly, of its own accord, think it a duty to examine the indictment to detect errors in it. Many hundreds, perhaps, are now in the state prison on erroneous indictments, who, however, have been fairly tried on the merits. But reverse the case, and suppose an acquittal to take place, the prosecutor, if he be dissatisfied and bent on conviction, has nothing to do but to tell the court that his own indictment was good for nothing ; that it has no venue, or is deficient in other particulars, and that, therefore, he has a right to a second chance of convicting the prisoner, and so on, toties quoties” 1 Johns. 74.
In Commonwealth v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521, 526, Chief Justice Parker, speaking of the doctrine which allows a man to be tried again after being acquitted on an indictment substantially bad, said that “ ingenuity has suggested that he never was in jeopardy, because it is to be presumed that the court will discover the defect in time to prevent judgment; ” but that this “is bottomed upon an assumed infallibility of the courts, which is not admitted in any other case.”
In the Revised Statutes of Massachusetts of 1836, c. 123, §§ 4, 5, provisions were inserted, which, as the commissioners who reported them said, were “ intended to define and determine, as far as may be, the cases in which a former acquittal shall, or shall not, be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offence;” and were as follows: “Ho person shall be held to answer on a second indictment, for any offence of which he has been acquitted by the jury upon the facts and p. 669merits, on a former trial; but such acquittal may be pleaded by him in bar of any subsequent prosecution for the same offence, notwithstanding any defect in the form or in the substance of the indictment on which he was acquitted. If any person, who is indicted for an offence, shall on his trial be acquitted upon the ground of a variance between the indictment and the proof, or upon any exception to the form or to the substance of the indictment, he may be arraigned again on a new indictment, and may be tried and convicted for the same offence, notwithstanding such former acquittal.” Similar statutes have been passed in other States. 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. (2d ed.) 532.
The American decisions in which the English doctrine has been followed have been based upon the English authorities, with nothing added by way of reasoning.
After the full consideration which the importance of the question demands, that doctrine appears to us to be unsatisfactory in the grounds on which it proceeds, as well as unjust in its operation upon those accused of crime; and the question being now for the first time presented to this court, we are unable to resist the conclusion that a general verdict of acquittal upon the issue of not guilty to an indictment undertaking to charge murder, and not objected to before the verdict as insufficient in that respect, is a bar to a second indictment for the same killing.
The Constitution of the United States, in the Fifth Amendment, declares, “ nor shall any person be subject to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial. An acquittal before a court having no jurisdiction is, of course, like all the proceedings in the case, absolutely void, and therefore no bar to subsequent indictment and trial in a court which has jurisdiction of the offence. Commonwealth n . Peters, 12 Met. 387; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 35, § 3; 1 Bishop’s Crim. Law, § 1028. But although the indictment was fatally defective, yet, if the court had jurisdiction of the cause and of the party, its judgment p. 670is not void, but only voidable by writ of error; and, until so avoided, cannot be collaterally impeached. If the judgment is upon a verdict of guilty, and unreversed, it stands good, and warrants the punishment of the defendant accordingly, and he could not be discharged by a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18. If the judgment is upon an acquittal, the defendant, indeed, will not seek to have it reversed; and the government cannot. United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310. But the fact that the judgment of a court having jurisdiction of the case is practically final affords no reason for allowing its validity and conclusiveness to be impugned in another case.
The former indictment set forth a charge of murder, although lacking the requisite fulness and precision. The verdict of the jury, after a trial upon the issue of guilty or not guilty, acquitted Millard F. Ball of the whole charge, of murder, as well as of any less offence included therein. Bev. Stat. § 1035. That he was thereupon discharged by the Circuit Court by reason of his acquittal by the jury, and not by reason of any insufficiency in the indictment, is clearly shown by the fact that the court, by the same order which discharged him, committed the other defendants, found guilty by the same verdict, to custody to await sentence, and afterwards adjudged them guilty and sentenced them to death upon that indictment. Millard F. Ball’s acquittal by the verdict of the jury could not be deprived of its legitimate effect by the subsequent reversal by this court of the judgment against the other defendants upon the writ of error sued out by them only.
It is true that the verdict finding John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell guilty as charged in the indictment, and finding Millard F. Ball not guilty, was returned on Sunday; as well as that the order thereupon made by the court, by which it was considered that the first two defendants were guilty as charged in the indictment and found by the jury, and be remanded to custody to await the judgment and sentence of the court, and that Millard F. Ball be discharged and go without day, was made on the same day. That order, indeed, as p. 671already adjudged by this court, could not have effect as a judgment against the two defendants who had been convicted, because no judgment can lawfully be entered on Sunday. Ball v. United States, 140 U. S. 118, 131; 3 Bl. Com. 277. But when a case is committed to the jury on Saturday, their verdict may be received and the jury discharged on Sunday. This has been generally put upon the ground that the reception of the verdict and discharge of the jury is but a ministerial act, involving no judicial discretion ; or that it is an act of necessity; and it certainly tends to promote the observance of the day more than would keeping the jury together until Monday. Hoghtaling v. Osborn, 15 Johns. 119; Van Riper v. Van Riper, 1 Southard, (4 N. J. Law,) 156; Huidehoper v. Cotton, 3 Watts, 56 ; Baxter v. People, 3 Gilman, 368, 385; Hiller v. English, 4 Strob. 486; Cory v. Silcox, 5 Indiana, 370; Webber v. Merrill, 34 N. H. 202 ; Reid v. State, 53 Alabama, 402; Meece v. Commonwealth, 78 Kentucky, 586, 588; State v. Ford, 37 La. Ann. 443, 466.
As to the defendant who had been acquitted by the verdict duly returned and received, the court could take no other action than to order his discharge. The verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting him twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution. However it may be in England, in this country a verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offence. United States v. Sanges, 144 IT. S. 310; Commonwealth v. Tach, 20 Pick. 356, 365 ; West v. State, 2 Zabriskie, (22 N. J. Law,) 212, 231; 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 532.
For these reasons, the verdict of acquittal was conclusive in favor of Millard F. Ball; and as to him the judgment must be reversed, and judgment rendered for him upon his plea of former acquittal.
It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider any of the other questions raised at the trial which affect Millard F. Ball only; and we proceed to consider those affecting the other defendants, John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell.
Their plea of former conviction cannot be sustained, because p. 672upon a writ of error sued out by themselves the judgment and sentence against them were reversed, and the indictment ordered to be dismissed. How far, if they had taken no steps to set aside the proceedings in the former case, the verdict and sentence therein could have been held to bar a new indictment against them need not be considered, because it is quite clear that a defendant, who procures a judgment against him upon an indictment to be set aside, may be tried anew upon the same indictment, or upon another indictment, for the same offence of which he had been convicted. H.opt v. Utah, 104 U. S. 631; 110 U. S. 574; 114 U. S. 488; 120 U. S. 430; Regina v. Drury, 3 Cox Crim. Cas. 544; /S'. C. 3 Car. & Kirw. 193; Commonwealth v. Gould, 12 Gray, 171. The court therefore rightly overruled their plea of former jeopardy; and cannot have prejudiced them by afterwards permitting them to put in evidence the former conviction, and instructing the jury that the plea was bad.
These two defendants moved that they be tried separately from Millard F. Ball, because he had been previously acquitted; because the government relied on his acts and declarations made after the killing and not in their presence or hearing; and because he was a material witness in their behalf. But the question whether defendants jointly indicted should be tried together or separately was a question resting in the sound discretion of the court below. United States v. Marchant, 12 Wheat. 480. It does not appear that there was any abuse of that discretion in ordering the three defendants to be tried together, or that the court did not duly limit the effect of any evidence introduced which was competent against one defendant and incompetent against the others. See Sparf n . United States, 156 U. S. 51, 58. On the contrary, upon the offer by the United States of evidence of declarations made by Millard F. Ball after the killing and not in the presence of the other defendants, and upon an objection to its admissibility against them, the court at once said, in the presence of the jury, that, of course, it would be only evidence against him, if he said anything; and the court was not afterwards requested to make any further ruling upon this point,
The exception to the restriction of the cross-examination of Cross and Berney, two material witnesses for the prosecution, cannot be sustained. The court permitted the defendants’ counsel, for the purpose of showing bias and prejudice on the part of these witnesses, to ask them whether they had, at their own expense, employed another attorney to assist the District Attorney in the prosecution of this case; and they frankly answered that they had. That fact having been thus proved and admitted, the further question to one of them, “How much do you pay him ? ” might properly be excluded by the presiding judge as immaterial.
The government introduced evidence tending to show that Box was killed with low-mould buckshot, as he was going home through a cornfield late at night; that he had twelve wounds on his breast, collar bone and hips; that gun wadding was found close to his body; that he was shot with a double-barrelled, muzzle-loading gun, belonging to the defendant John C. Ball, and which had been in the marshal’s exclusive control since the arrest of the defendants; and that this gun scattered low-mould buckshot badly. The defendants introduced evidence that the gun did not scatter such shot; and requested permission of the court to take the gun out and shoot it off in the presence of a deputy marshal, in order to test how it threw such shot. The court denied the request; and the defendants excepted to the denial. The granting or refusal of such a request, first made in the midst of the trial, was clearly within the discretion of the court.
The only grounds of the motion in arrest of judgment, which were argued in this court, were that the indictment did not allege that Box died of the wound charged to have been inflicted upon his body by the defendants; nor that he died at a place within the jurisdiction of the court. But the indictment alleged that the defendants, in Pickens county in the Indian Territory, on June 26, 1889, by shooting with a loaded gun, inflicted upon the body of Box “ a mortal wound, of which mortal wound the said William T. Box did languish, and languishing did then and there instantly die.” It was thus distinctly and unequivocally alleged that Box died of the
vol . cl xhi —43 p. 674mortal wound alleged to have been inflicted by the defendants, and that he died at the time and place at which the mortal wound was inflicted.
The court overruled a motion of the defendants for a new trial, made upon the ground that the jury, from the time they were empanelled until they returned their verdict, were not in charge of a proper officer. At the hearing of this motion, it was admitted that the jury, during all the trial, were in charge of a deputy marshal of the United States for the district, who was not sworn as bailiff of this jury, and the only oath ever administered to whom was as deputy marshal many months before the trial; and “ that the court instructed the jury in this case that they must not separate, must not talk to each other, and must not allow themselves to be talked to by any party on the outside, about this case.” It would have been according to the more usual and regular practice, to administer a special oath to the officer put in charge of a jury. But the jury were in charge of a deputy marshal, who had, as such, taken an oath that he would “ in all things well and truly, and without malice or partiality, perform the duties of the office of marshal’s deputy.” Rev. Stat. § 782. No objection to his taking charge of the jury without a new oath was made at any stage of the trial; the jury were duly cautioned by the court not to separate, nor to allow any other person to talk to them about the case; and there was nothing tending to show that the jury were exposed to any influence that might interfere with the impartial performance of their duties, or in any way prejudice the defendant. Such being the facts, the court was not obliged, as matter of law, to set aside the verdict because no special oath had been administered to the officer in charge of the jury.
No other question of law affecting the defendants John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell is presented by the copy of record submitted to this court, and which, by stipulation of counsel, has been agreed to contain everything that is material.
Judgment reversed as to Millard F. Ball, and affirmed as to the other defendants.
APPENDIX.
i.
CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1895, NOT OTHERWISE REPORTED, INCLUDING CASES DISMISSED IN VACATION PURSUANT TO RULE 28.
No. 797. Aetna Lif e Insurance Comp any v . Florida . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. November 18, 1895 : Petition denied. Mr. Frank M. Estes for the petition. Mr. L. R. Wilfley opposing.
No. 109. Allen v . Cannon . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. December 4, 1895: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Charles H. Armes for appellant. No appearance for appellees.
No. 212. Amer ican Dock and Improveme nt Company v . Jerse y City . Error to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey. April 13, 1896 : Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. J. D. Bedie and Mr. Robert W. De Forest for plaintiff in error. Mr. Gilbert Collins and Mr. Wm. D. Edwards for defendants in error.
No. 994. Ameri can Water Works Company v . Farme rs ’ Loan and Trust Compa ny . No . 995. Clarks on v . Farme rs ’ p. 676Loan and Trust Comp any . Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. May 18, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. John L. Webster in support of petitions. Mr. David McClure opposing.
No. 803. Andre ws v . Thum . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. January 6, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Thomas J. Johnston and Mr. Wm. H. Doolittle for petitioner. No one opposing.
No. 126. Asl es en v . Minne sot a . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. December 17, 1895: Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. John M. Oliver for plaintiff in error. Mr. H. W. Childs for defendant in error.
No. 787. Atchis on , Tope ka and Santa Fe Railroa d Company v . Mull igan alias Guiver . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. November 25, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. E. D. Kenna, Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne for petitioner. Mr. Alphonso Hart opposing.
No. 816. Baca v . Unite d State s . Appeal from the Court, of Private Land Claims. December 9, 1895: Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for appellees. No one opposing.
No. 626. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v .. Sutherland . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. March 23, 1896: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. John K. Cowen for plaintiff in error. Mr. G. B. Walker, Mr. John H. Doyle and Mr. Warren Severance for defendant, in error
No. 78. Balti more and Ohio and Chicago Railway Com - pany v. Yarde . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. November 20, 1895 : Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. John K. Cowen and Mr. E. J. D. Cross for plaintiff in error. Mr. Merrill Moores for defendant in error.
No. 954. Barb er v . Isaacs . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. May 25, 1896 : Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. John H. Mitchell for plaintiff in error. No appearance for the defendant in error.
No. 772. Barber Asphalt Paving Company v . Harris - burg . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. October 21, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. William H. Middleton for the petition. Mr. A. S. Worthington and Mr. Charles H. Bergner opposing.
No. 127. Basset t v . Minnesota . Error to Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. December 17, 1895: Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. John M. Oliver for plaintiff in error. Mr. H. W. Childs for defendant in error.
No. 28. Bate Refri gerating Company v . Toffe y . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. October 14, 1895 : Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. Paul H. Bate and Mr. B. F. Lee for appellant. Mr. Livingston Gifford for appellees.
No. 927. Baughn v . Millirons . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. May 4, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth, rule. Mr. W. C. Glenn for appellant. Mr. J. M. Terrell for appellees.
No. 278. Bertha Zinc and Mineral Comp any v . Carri co . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia. November 11,1895 : Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. F. S. Blair for appellant. No appearance for appellees.
No. 233. Black v . Black . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. April 27, 1896: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355. Mr. Francis Tracy Tobin and Mr. Henry Budd for plaintiff in error. Mr. Arthur Biddle and Mr. George W. Biddle for defendant in error.
No. 274. Booth v . Crawf ord . Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. October 14, 1895 : Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for plaintiffs in error. Mr. James N. Kimball for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 792. Buck v . United States . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. March 9, 1896: Judgment affirmed. No appearance for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendant in error.
No. 775. California Fig Syrup Company v . Putnam . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. October 21, 1895 : Petition denied. Mr. F. W. Lehmann and Mr. Paul Bakewell for the petition. No opposition.
No. 167. Campbe ll u Quigl ey . Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Charleston County, South Carolina. March 19, 1896 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.
APPENDIX. m
Mr. William E. Earle for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 155. Campbell v . Sohachte . Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Charleston County, South Carolina. March 13, 1896 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. William E. Earle for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 154. Campbell v . Thames . Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Charleston County, South Carolina. March 12, 1896 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. William E. Earle for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 877. Caverl y v . Deere . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. March 30, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Henry M. Foote for the petition. Mr. L. L. Bond, Mr. C. E. Pickard, Mr. A. H. Adams and Mr. J. L. Jackson, opposing.
No. 93L Ceball os u Schoone r Warren Adams . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. March 23, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Sidney Chubb for petitioner. Mr. R. D. Benedict opposing.
No. 749. Centra l Trust Company of New York v . Richm ond , Nicholas ville Irvine and Beat tyv ille Rail - road Comp any . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. October 28, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. Rozel Weissinger for the petition. Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey and Mr. George M. Davie opposing.
No. 298. Certain Real Estate known as the Gardo House v . United States . No . 299. United States v . Cer - tain Real Estate known as the Gardo House . No . 300. Certain Real Estate know n as the Church Farm v . Unite d States . No . 301. Certain Real Estate known as the Coal Lands v . Unite d States . No . 302. Unite d States v . Certain Real Estate known as the Tithin g Yard and Offi ces . Appeals from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. April 20, 1896 : Judgments reversed and causes remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah for such further proceedings as to law and justice may appertain, in conformity with the provisions of the joint resolution of Congress “ providing for the disposition of certain property now in the hands of the receiver of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” approved March 28, 1896. AL*. A7. xSL Richards and Afr. LeGrand Young for Certain Real Est ate , &c . Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for Unite d States .
No. 239. Charle st on Bridge Company v . Higbee . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina. April 20, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. John F. Ficken for appellant. Mr. J. P. Kennedy Bryan for appellees.
No. 333. Chicag o , Rock Island and Pacific Railw ay Comp any v . Stahle y . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. January 7, 1896: Dismissed with costs, on the authority of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. M. A. Loro and Mr. IF. F. Evans for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry Elliston for the defendant in error.
No. 551. Chin Yuan Sing v . Kil breth . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. March 2, 1896: Dismissed, pursuant to the p. 681tenth rule. Jfr. B. C. Chetwood for the appellant. Mr. Attorney General for the appellee.
No. 849. Church of Christ v . Reorga nized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. January 27,1896 : Petition denied. Mr. Smith McPherson and Mr. Frank Hagerman for the petitioner. Mr. 0. 0. Tichenor opposing.
No. 379. Cill ey v. Patten . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire. July 17, 1895: Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. Harvey D. Hadlock for plaintiff in error. Mr. John M. Mitchell and Mr. Frank S. Streeter for defendant in error.
No. 465. Cill ey v . Patten . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Hampshire. July 17, 1895: Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. Harvey D. Hadlock for appellant. Mr. Frank S. Streeter for appellees.
No. 263. Comitiz v. Parkers on . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. April 29, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. E. Howard McCaleb for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
No. 1022. Cook v . Eells . Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. May 25, 1896: Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for appellees. No one opposing.
No. 226. Cook v . Stree t . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. April 20, 1896: Dismissed with costs, on the authority of Credit Company v. Arkansas Central Railway Company, 128 U. S. 258; Evans v. State Bank, 134 U. S. 330; Green n . Elbert, 137 U. S. 615, and Jacobs n . George, 150 U. S. 415. Mr. IF. H. Webster for plaintiffs in error. Mr. F. C. Winkler for defendants in error.
No. 837. Cooper v . United States . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama. January 6, 1896: Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error. No one opposing.
No. 955. Crimp v . Mc Cormi ck Constru ctio n Company . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. May 4, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. John N. Jewett for. petitioner. Mr. Charles M. Sturges opposing.
Nos. 261 and 262. Croppe r v . Mc Lane . Error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. March 23, 1896: Dismissed with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. J. Holdsworth Gordon for defendants in error. Mr. Blair Lee and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Enoch Totten, Mr. J. Holdsworth Gordon and Mr. Bernard Carter for defendants in error.
No. 747. Daven por t v . United Stat es . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. February 3, 1896: Judgment reversed upon confession of error by counsel for defendant in error, and cause remanded with directions to set aside the verdict and grant a p. 683new trial. Mr. G. B. Denison for plaintiff in error. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendant in error.
No. 295. Davis v . Patrick . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 20, 1896: Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for plaintiffs in error. Mr. J. M. Woolworth for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 776. Davis u Wakelee . No . 777. Davis v . Corn - wall . Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. October 21, 1895 : Petitions denied. Mr. Walter S. Logan and Mr. C. M. Demond for petitioners. Mr. Anson Maltby opposing.
No. 190. Denni s v . De Lacey . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. March 25, 1896 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. J. C. Campbell for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
No. 3. Deno r. Griff in . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. October 29,1895 : Dismissed with costs, the case having abated. Mr. H. F. Bartine for plaintiff in error. Mr. Jackson H. Ralston for defendant in error.
No. 684. Detroi t Cit iz ens ’ Street Rail way Compa ny v . Detroit . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. November 11, 1895 : Petition denied. (Mr. Justice Brown took no part in the consideration and determination of this petition.) Mr. C. A. Kent and Mr. Benton Hanchett for petitioner. Mr. p. 684Henry M. Duffield, Mr. Michael Brennan, Mr. John C. Donnelly, Mr. Ashley Pond, Mr. Fred. A. Balter and Mr. James C. Carter, opposing.
No. 309. Douglas v . Unite d Stat es . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. May 5, 1896 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. B. B. McMahon for plaintiff in error. Mr. B. H. Battle for defendants in error.
No. 193. Dubois v . Commissioner of Patents . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. March 26, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Bodney Mason for appellant. No appearance for the appellee.
No. 27. Duff y v . Green . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia. October 16, 1895 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Alfred Caldwell and Mr. T. S. Biley for appellants. Mr. William J. Robertson for appellees.
No. 634. Duval v . Pullm an Pala ce Car Company . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. October 21, 1895 : Petition denied. Mr. J. L. Peeler for petitioner. Mr. Percy Boberts opposing.
No. 192. Easter n Railway Company of Minnesota v . Moran . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. October 14, 1895: Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. M. D. Gt'over for plaintiff in error. Mr. John M. Martin and Mr. Charles E. Flandrau for defendant in error.
No. 131. Eddy v . Wall ace . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. December 16, 1895 : Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne in behalf of counsel for the plaintiffs in error, and cause remanded to the United States court for the Indian Territory. Mr. James Hagerman for plaintiffs in error. Mr. W. T. Hutchings for defendant in error.
No. 862. Elder v . Mc Claskey . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. February 3, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. S. T. Crawford and Mr. John A. Crawford for petitioner. Mr. Richard A. Harrison, Mr. J. C. Harper and Mr. Ledyard Lincoln opposing.
No. 855. Elmi ra and Horseh eads Railway Comp any v . Thomson -Houston Elec tri c Company . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. February 3,1896 : Petition denied. Mr. Edmund Wetmore, Mr. William A. Jenner and Mr. Thomas B. Kerr for petitioner. Mr. Frederic H. Betts and Mr. James R. Sheffield opposing
No. 211. Eppers on v . Carter . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. April 1, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. W. W. Upton for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry IF. McCorry for defendants in error.
No. 237. Farmer v . National Lif e Ass ociatio n . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. April 20, 1896 : Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. A. G. McDonald and Mr. James P. Judge for plaintiff in error. Mr. Roger Foster for defendant in error.
No. 785. Farmers ’ Loan and Trust Company v . Soott . Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. April 24, 1896: Dismissed per stipulation. Jfr. James M. Lawrence for appellant. Mr. Charles E. Joslin and Mr. Charles A. Willard for appellee.
No. 228. Filhi ol v . United States . Appeal from the Court of Claims. April 20,1896: Affirmed for want of prosecution. Mr. Wm. E. Earle and Mr. James L. Pugh, Jr., for appellant. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dodge for appellee.
No. 151. First Natio nal Bank of Clark v . South Dakota . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota. March 18, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the sixteenth rule. Mr. John G. Manahan for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Robert Dollard for defendant in error.
No. 817. Flet cher v . United States . Appeal from the Court of Private Land Claims. December 9,1895 : Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for appellees. No one opposing.
No. 514. Flournoy Live Stock and Real Estate Com - pany v. Beck . Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. October 23, 1895 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Mr. Wm. V. Allen for appellant. Mr. Attorney General for appellee.
No. 255. Forman v . Chopp in . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. May 4, 1896: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. E.
Howard McCaleb for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
No. 272. Fost er v . Wistar . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. April 30, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to tenth rule. Mr. James Spencer for plaintiff in error. Mr. William W. Billson for defendants in error.
No. 985. Frankel ’s Sons v . United State s . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. May 18, 1896 : Petition denied. Mr. W. Wickham Smith, Mr. Charles Curie and Mr. David Ives Mackie for petitioner. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney opposing.
No. 546. Friend v . Unite d State s . Appeal from the Court of Claims. September 19, 1895: Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty eighth rule. Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood for appellant. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General Conrad for appellees.
No. 882. Garitee v . Unite d States . Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. February 3, 1896: Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error. No one opposing.
Nos. 182 and 183. Garland v . Bear Lake and River Water Works and Irri gati on Company . Appeals from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. January 27, 1896: Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. John F. Dillon for appellee. Mr. Sanford B. Ladd for appellant. Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. C. 0. Tichenor for appellees.
No. 657. Garner v . National Bank . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. May 18, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Alexander Thain for petitioner. Mr. James Tillinghast, Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne, opposing.
No. 690. German Bank v . Tennes see . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. January 16, 1896: Dismissed with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. 8. P. Walker for defendant in error. Mr. L. B. McFarland for plaintiffs in error. Mr. C. W. Metcalf and Mr. Samuel P. Walker for defendant in error.
No. 691. Germ an Bank v . Tennes see . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. January 16, 1896: Dismissed with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. S. P. Walker for defendants in error. Mr. L. B. McFarland for plaintiffs in error. Mr. C. W. Metcalf and Mr. Samuel P. Walker for defendant in error.
No. 145. Gohlman v . Barton . Error to the United States-Court for the Indian Territory. December 20, 1895: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Robert B. Collins for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
No. 728. Golds by alias Cherokee Bill v . United States . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. May 18, 1896: Dismissed, the cause having abated, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error. J/r. Attorney General for defendant in error. No appearance for plaintiff in error.
No. 602. Gregor y v . Pike . No . 603. Gregory v . Talbot . Appeals from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for- p. 689the First Circuit. November 25,1895 : Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, and causes remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Mr. F. A. Brooks for appellants. Mr. Thomas H. Talbot and Mr. John Lowell for appellees.
No. 213. Gunn v . Georgia . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. April 1,1896 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. R. F. Lyon for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. M. Terrell for defendant in error.
No. 832. Hamer v . Ogden City . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. May 4, 1896: Motion to remand granted and cause remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah for further proceedings in conformity to law. Mr. Franklin S. Richards, Mr. Samuel Shellabarger, Mr. J. M. Wilson and Mr. Charles C. Richards for appellant. Mr. Arthur Brown for appellee.
No. 944. Hamm ond v . Stockton Combined Harvester and Agricultural Works . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. March 30, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. John H. Miller and Mr. James G. Maguire for petitioner. No one opposing.
No. 987. Hathaway and Co . v . Marts . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. May 18, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Edward E. Blodgett and Mr. Eugene P. Carver for petitioner. No one opposing.
No. 556. Holcomb v . Wright . No . 577. Wright v . Hol - comb . Appeals from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. January 20, 1896 : Dismissed, costs to be paid by
vol . CLxm—44 p. 690Curtis W. Holcomb, per stipulations, on motion of Mr. Walter H. Smith for Holcomb. Mr. Walter H. Smith for Holcomb. Mr. C. A. Brandenburg, Mr. Henry E. Davis and Mr. Edward A. Mezoman for Wright.
No. 208. Howell v . United States . Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. March 9, 1896: Dismissed on authority of counsel for plaintiffs in error, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error. Mr. W. F. Evans and Mr. William Warner for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error.
No. 934. Hubbaed v . Exchange Bank . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. March 30, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. W. J. Curtis for petitioner. Mr. John R. Abney opposing.
No. 125. Hukill v . Guff ey . Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of West Virginia. December 12, 1895: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. W. P. Hubbard for plaintiff in error. No appearance foi defendants in error.
No. 935. Huntingt on v . Peoceeds of the Steamshi p Ad , vance . No. 936. Huntington v . Peoceeds of the Steam , ship Allianca . No . 937. Hunti ngton v . Peocee ds of the Steams hip Vigi lancia . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. March 30,1896 : Petition denied. Mr. R. D. Bene-' diet and Mr. Maxwell Evarts for petitioner. Mr. Lewis Cass Ledyard opposing.
No. 117. Illi nois Centba l Railb oad Company v . Matt oon . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. October
14, 1895: Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. James Fentress for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 244. Illi nois Central Railroad Company v . Walke r . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. April 27, 1896 : Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. Edward Mayes and Mr. James Fentress for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. Brame for defendant in error.
No. 906. Insurance Comp any of North Amer ica v . Inter - national Trust Company . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 16, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Ebenezer T. Wells, Mr. Mortimer F. Taylor and Mr. Sylvester G. Williams for petitioner. Mr. Henry Wise Garnett and Mr. N. T. H
Robinson opposing.
No. 902. Inter nati onal Trust Company v . Norw ich Union Fire Insurance Society . Petition for a writ of certiora/ri to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 16, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Ebenezer T. Wells, Mr. Mortimer F. Taylor and Mr. Sylvester G. Williams for petitioner. Mr. Henry Wise Garnett and Mr. N. T. H. Robinson opposing.
No. 743. Kahnweiler v . Phenix Insurance Compa ny . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. December 9, 1895 : Petition denied. Mr. Henry Elliston and Mr. Horace M. Jackson for petitioner. No one opposing.
No. 780. Kildare Lumber Comp any v . Natio nal Bank of Comme rce . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United p. 692States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. December 16, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. M. L. Crawford and Mr. Charles S. Todd for petitioner. Mr. Elijah Robinson opposing.
No. 338. Knox u Gaddi s . Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. December 2, 1895: Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. J. J. Johnson for appellant. Mr. J. J. Johnson for appellant. No appearance for the appellee.
No. 638. Law -w . Steams hip Trave . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. October 21, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. William D. Shipman for petitioner. Mr. Eugene P. Carver and Mr. Harrington Putnam opposing.
No. 243. Link v . Union Pacif ic Railw ay Company . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming. April 20, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne for plaintiff in error. Mr.- John F. Dillon and Mr. John M. Thurston for defendant in error.
No. 11. Original. Ex parte. In re Lochb en , Commi ssi oner of Pens ions . May 4, 1896 : Writ of mandamus granted on the authority of Interstate Commerce Com,mission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for petitioner. No one opposing.
No. 763. Luckey v . United Stat es . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. January 27, 1896 : Judgment reversed, upon confession of error by the defendant in error, and cause remanded with directions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. No p. 693appearance for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendant in error.
No. 84. Lybarger v . Washington State . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. November 21, 1895 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. B. Sheeks for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. C. Jones for defendant in error.
No. 717. Lyons -Thoma s Hardware Company v . Perry Stove Manuf actu ring Company . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. December 9, 1895: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. James G. Dudley, Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. G. Garland for plaintiffs in error. Mr. H. D. McDonald and Mr. V. W. Hale for defendants in error.
No. 188. Mc Clellan r. Pyeat t . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 25, 1896 : Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. A. H. Garland for plaintiffs in error. Mr. John H. Rogers for defendants in error.
No. 799. Mc Connell v . Provide nt Savings Lif e Assur - ance Society . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. November 25, 1895 : Petition denied. Mr. Edwin B. Smith for petitioner. Mr. Tully R. Cornick and Mr. Jerome Templeton opposing.
No. 442. Mc Cullo ugh v . New York , New Haven and Hartfo rd Hailroad Company . Certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. December 16, 1895: Dismissed on motion of Mr. Mason N. p. 694Richardson in behalf of counsel for McCullough. Mr. J. A. Hyland for McCullough. No appearance for the railroad company.
No. 70. Mc Glens y v . Van Vranken . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia. November 18, 1895: Order reversed on the authority of Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S. 109, and cause remanded with directions to remand Van Vranken to custody. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
No. 916. Mack v . Porte r . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. March 9, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Samuel Sheb labarger and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson for petitioner. Mr. William P. Hubbard and Mr. Henry M. Russell opposing.
No. 956. Martin & Hill Cash Carri er Comp any v . Mar - tin . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. April 27, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Samuel Norris, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. Frederick P. Fish opposing.
No. 216. Mathew s v . Hanks . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. April 2, 1896: Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant, and cause remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah. Mr. Arthur Brown for appellant. Mr. William T. S. Curtis for appellee.
No. 221. Matthews v . Scott . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. April 13, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. C. M. Matthews for appellant. No appearance for appellees.
No. 355. Mayes v . Chris ti e . Appeal from the United States Court for the Indian Territory. January 13, 1896: Dismissed, the cause having abated owing to the death of the appellee, on motion of Mr. R. C. Garland in behalf of counsel for appellant. Mr. William M. Cravens and Mr. A. H. Garland for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
No. 839. Mayor and City Council of Columbus v . Den - nison . Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. January 27, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. C. Garland for petitioner. Mr. R. C. Beckett opposing.
No. 670. Mecha nics ’ Savi ngs Bank v . Tennes see . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. January 16, 1896: Dismissed with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. S. P. Walker for defendant in error. Mr. George Gantt for plaintiffs in error. Mr. G. W. Metcalf and Mr. Samuel P. Walker for defendant in error.
No. 671. Mechanics ’ Savi ngs Bank v . Tennes see . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. January 16, 1896: Dismissed with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. S. P. Walker for defendants in error. Mr. George Gantt for plaintiffs in error. Mr. C. W. Metcalf and Mr. Samuel P. Walker for defendants in error.
No 222. Medler v . Albuquerque Hotel and Opera House Compa ny . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. October 14, 1895: Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. Mr. Thomas Smith and Mr. W. B. Childers for appellant. No appearance for appellees.
No. 77. Michig an Dairy Compa ny v . Conve rse . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. November 15, 1895: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. E. S. Eggleston for appellants. Mr. Niram A. Fletcher and Mr. George P. Wanty for appellee. ____________
No. 297. Minneap olis , St . Paul and Sault Ste . Marie Rail wa y Comp any v . Farwell Farmers ’ Warehouse Ass ocia - tion . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. October 30, 1895 : Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. Albert E. Clarke for plaintiff in error. Mr. II. W. Childs for defendant in error.
No. 144. Miss ouri v . Board of Equa liza tion of Bu - chanan County . Error to the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri. December 20,1895 : Dismissed with costs on authority of counsel for plaintiffs in error. Mr. G. G. Vest and Mr. H. K. White for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Stephen L. Brown for defendant in error.
Nos. 578, 579. Miss ouri v . Slover . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. February 3, 1896: Dismissed with costs on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. H. Bisbee for plaintiff- in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 181. Mitc hell v . South Dakota . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota. March 24, 1896: Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Thomas B. Me Martin for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 531. Moore v . Mill er . Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. October 30, 1895 : p. 697Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Samuel Shellaharger for appellant. Mr. George F. Edmunds, Mir. Samuel Shellaibarger and Mir. J. M. Wilson for appellant. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for appellee.
No. 169. Morse Arms Manuf actu ring Company v . Unite d States . Appeal from the Court of Claims. April 27, 1896: Dismissed on motion of Mr. James A. Shilton for the appellant. Mr. H. E. Paine and Mr. James A. Shilton for appellant. Mr. Attorney General for appellee.
No. 976. Neall -v. Schrader . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. May 4, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Henry Flanders and Mr. E. F. Pugh for petitioner. Mr. J. Rodman Paul and Mr. John G. Johnson opposing.
No. 306. New Mexico v . Perea . Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. May 5, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Charles H. Gildersleeve for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 92. New Orleans v . United States ex rel. Whitney . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. November 22, 1895: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Henry C. Miller for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 133. New Orlea ns City and Lake Kailr oad Com - pany v. New Orleans . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. December 18,1895 : Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. E. B. Whitney in behalf of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles F. Buch, Mr. George Denegre p. 698and J/r. Walter D. Denegre for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. A. O'Sullivan ior defendant in error.
No. 76. New York and New England Railroad Company v. Rumse y . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. November 18, 1895: Dismissed with costs on authority of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. W. C. Anthony for plaintiff in error. Mr. Lawrence Godwin for defendant in error.
No. 223. New York and New England Railroad Com - pany v. Rumse y . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. April 13, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. W. C. Anthony for plaintiff in error. Mr. Lawrence Godkin for defendants in error.
No. 201. Northe rn Pacif ic Railroad Company v . Cava - naugh . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 13, 1896 : Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. A. H. Garland, Mr. W. J. Curtis and Mr. Charles W. Bunn for plaintiff in error. Mr. Cyrus Wellington for defendant in error.
No. 152. North ern Pacif ic Railroa d Company v . Nickels . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. October 18, 1895: Dismissed per stipulation and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Mr. James McNaught and Mr. W. J. Curtis for plaintiff in error. Mr. Frank D. Larabee for defendant in error.
No. 205. Northe rn Pacifi c Railroa d Comp any v . Peter - son . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 13, 1896: Dismissed per p. 699stipulation. Mr. A. II. Garland, Mr. Janies McNaught, Mr. IK. J. Curtis and Mr. Charles W. Bunn for plaintiff in error. Mr. Cyrus Wellington for defendant in error.
No. 203. Northern Pacifi c Railroad Company v . Sulli - van . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 24, 1896: Dismissed on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. H. Garland, Mr. W. J. Curtis and Mr.- Charles W. Bunn for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry J. Gjertsen for defendant in error.
No. 830. Olcott v . Rice . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. March 9, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. John G. Winter, Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. C. Garland for petitioner. Mr. Henry F. Ring opposing.
No. 288. Ouzts v. Ward . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina. May 4, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Mr. D. A. Townsend for appellant. Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for appellee.
No. 933. Peral tare avis v . United States . Appeal from the Court of Private Land Claims. March 16, 1896: Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for appellee. No one opposing.
No. 479. Peter s u . Unite d States . Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma. October 22, 1895: Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Fred. Beall for plaintiff in error. Mr. Attorney General for defendant in error.
No. 231. Piper v . Chippe wa Iron Compa ny . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. April 16, 1896 : Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. J. L. Washburn for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 232. Piper v. Chipp ewa Iron Company . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. April 17, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. J. L. Washburn for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 102. Pitts v . Unit ed States . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. December 3, 1895 : Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. James N. Gastie for plaintiff in error. Mr. Attorney General for defendant in error.
No. 24. Poll ard v. Bonsack Machi ne Comp any . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia. October 15, 1895 : Dismissed with costs pursuant to the nineteenth rule. Mr. William D. Baldwin for appellant. Mr. Samuel A. Duncan for appellee.
No. 149. Postal Telegbap h Cable Company f. Norfolk and Western Railr oad Company . Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. March 10, 1896 : Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. William A. Maury for plaintiff in error. Mr. Edgar Allen and Mr. William A. Maury for plaintiff in error. Mr. George H. Fearons, Mr. George S. Bernard and Mr. Robert Stiles for defendant in error.
No. 1012. Press Publishing Comp any v . Mc Donald . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. May 25, 1896: Petition p. 701denied. Mr. Charles N. Harris and Mr. John M. Bowers for petitioner. Mr. Joseph G. Deane and Mr. Horace E. Deming opposing.
No. 932. Provident Savings Lif e Ass urance Society v . Nixon . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. March 23, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Edwin B. Smith and Mr. Edmund Wetmore for petitioner. Mr. Stanton Warburton opposing. ____________
No. 825. Quaker City Nationa l Bank v . Nolan County . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. March 2, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. John J. Butts for petitioner. No one opposing.
No. 434. Raven Gold Mining Comp any v . Miner s ’ Union . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. March 9, 1896: Dismissed with costs. Mr. Charles S. Thomas and Mr. W. H. Byrant for appellant. No appearance for the appellees.
No. 224. Reeder v . Lewi s . Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia. April 16, 1896 : Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. James McColgan for appellant. Mr. George E. Price for appellee.
No. 287. Ris er v . Langf ord . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina. May 4, 1896 : Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. D. A. Townsend for appellant. Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for appellee.
No. 61. Rober tson v . Druker . No . 64. Druker v . Robert - son . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the p. 702Southern District of New York. October 14, 1895: Juds'- ment reversed and cause remanded with directions to proceed according to law, per stipulation of counsel, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Attorney General for Robertson. Mr. Stephen G. Clarice, Mr. Edwin B. Smith, and Mr. Charles Curie for Druker.
No. 1021. Ross v. Eell s . Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. May 25, 1896: Docketed and dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for appellees. No one opposing.
No. 705. Rouse v . Cloughley . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 23, 1896: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction per stipulation. Mr. James Hagerman for plaintiff in error. Mr. Nelson Case for defendant in error.
No. 997. Rouse v . Hornsby . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. May 18, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. A. B. Browne, Mr. James Hagerman and Mr. T. N. Sedgwick for petitioner. Mr. Nelson Case opposing.
No. 101. Sage v . St . Paul , Stillwater and Taylor ’s Falls Railw ay Company . Appeal from the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. December 2, 1895 : Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne for the appellant, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Mr. C. K. Davis, Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne for appellant. Mr. Thomas Wilson for appellee.
No. 474. Sage v . Winona and St . Peter Railr oad Com - pany . Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of p. 703Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. December 2, 1895: Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne for appellant, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne for appellant. Mr. Thomas Wilson for appellees.
No. 29. Salo mon v . Rober tson . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. January 7, 1896: Dismissed with costs on the authority of counsel for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Henry E. Tremain and Mr. M. W. Tyler for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Attorney General for defendant in error.
No. 484. Salt Lake Rapid Transi t Company v . Riley . Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. August 6, 1895: Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. C. W. Bennett and Mr. John A. Marshall for plaintiff in error. Mr. P. L. Williams for defendant in error.
No. 292. Scranto n v . Wheel er . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. April 27,1896 : Judgment reversed, costs in all United States courts to be paid by Wheeler; and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan, with instructions to remand it to the Circuit Court of Chippewa County, Michigan, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error. Mr. John C. Donnelly for plaintiff in error. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error.
No. 90. Shipman v . Magarity . Error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. November 22, 1895 : Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. W. WillougUy for plaintiffs in error. Mr. S. S. Henkle for defendant in error.
No. 996. Shreve v . Chees man . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. May 18, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., and Mr. Tyson S. Dines for petitioner. Mr. T. M. Patterson and Mr. C. C. Parsons opposing.
No. 168. Shute v . Keyser . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona. October 17, 1895: Dismissed per stipulation, each party to pay one half the costs in this court. Mr. Wm. Allen Butler and Mr. John Notma/n for appellants. Mr. R. F. Brent for appellee.
No. 236. Smith v . Selleck . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. April 27, 1896: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. Lysander Hill for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. V. Quarles and Mr. Reese H. Voorhees for defendant in error.
No. 826. Society of Shakers v . Watso n . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: December 23, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. Watson Andrew Sudduth for petitioner. Mr. St. George R. Fitzhugh opposing.
No. 2. Sout her n Pacifi c Bailro ad Company v . Esqu ibe l . Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. October 15, 1895: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the nineteenth rule. Mr. Charles H. Tweed and Mr. T. B. Catron for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles H. Gildersleeve for defendant in error.
No. 823. Southern Pacifi c Bailroad Company v . Patter - son . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for p. 705the Southern District of California. December 10, 1895: Docketed and dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. 8. M. Stockslager for appellees. No one opposing.
No. 821. Southern Pacif ic Railroad Company v . Till ey . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. December 10,1895 : Docketed and dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. 8. M. Stockslager for appellees. No one opposing.
No. 822. Southern Pacif ic Railroad Company v . Walker . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. December 10, 1895 : Docketed and dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. 8. M. Stockslager for appellee. No one opposing.
No. 409. Sout hwe st ern Railro ad Company v . Cent ral Railroad and Banking Comp any of Georgia . Certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals fpr the Fifth Circuit. April 14, 1896 : Dismissed. Mr. Frank H. Miller, Mr. Augustus O. Bacon and Mr. Charles C. Beaman for the Southwestern Railroad Company. No appearance for the Central Railroad and Banking Company of Georgia.
No. 604. Starli ng v . Weir Plow Company . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. May 4, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. William Starling for petitioner. No one opposing.
No. 734. Steams hip Centur ion v . Americ an Sugar Refi n - ing Compa ny . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. October 21, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. W. W. MacFarland for
VOL. CLXIM—45
petitioner. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr. George A. Black opposing.
No. 992. Steam ship Ceres v . Wes se ls . No . 993. Syds - venska . Angf art ygs Akti ebo lag et v . Wessels . Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. May 18, 1896: Petitions denied. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin for petitioner in No. 992. Mr. Harrington Putnam in opposition to petition in No. 992 and in support of petition in No. 993.
No. 122. Steed v . Norfolk and Western Railr oad Com - pany . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia. October 14, 1895: Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Michael L. Woods and Mr. James U. Bible for plaintiff in error. No appearance for the defendant in error.
No. 162. St . Loui s and San Francisco Railw ay Company v. Lee . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. October 14, 1895: Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. T. Britton, Mr. A. B. Browne, Mr. George R. Peck and Mr. F. D. Kenna for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. G. Garland for defendant in error.
No. 163. St . Louis and San Francis co Railway Com - . pany v. Ryan . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. October 14, 1895: Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. T. Britton, Mr. A. B. Browne, Mr. George R. Peck and Mr. E. D. Kenna for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. C. Garland for defendant in error.
No. 945. Strickland v . Lomm . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. April 20, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Robert Hughes for petitioner. Mr. Wilhelmus Mynderse opposing.
No. 923. Sun Insurance Off ice v . Interna tional Trust Comp any . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 16, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. T. J. (J Donnell, Mr. W. S. Decher and Mr. Milton Smith for petitioner. Mr. Henry Wise Garnett and Mr. N. T. N. Robinson opposing.
No. 307. Taylor v . Girar d Life Insurance Annuity and Trust Company . Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. May 5, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Nathaniel Wilson, Mr. R. Ross Perry and Mr. Ludovic Bennett for appellants. Mr. Walter H. Smith and Mr. W. L. Cole for appellee.
No. 114. Texas and Pacifi c Railw ay Company v . Rose - dale Street Railway Company . Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas. November 14, 1895: Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. S. Pierce and Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 729. Thornton v . Unite d State s . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. January 13, 1896: Judgment reversed and cause remanded with a direction to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, upon confession of errors by counsel for defendant in error. No appearance for the plaintiff in error: Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Assistant p. 708Attorney General Whitney and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendant in error.
No. 69. Thorp v . Ten am Ditch Comp any . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. October 18, 1895: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. H. J. May for appellants. No appearance for appellee.
No. 824. Travelers ’ Insu rance Company v . Hende rso n . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. December 16,1895 ; Petition denied. Mr. J. J. Darlington for petitioner. Mr. T. F. Burke and Mr. B. D. Lee opposing.
No. 452. Tubman v . Deme nt . Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. January 27, 1896: Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for the plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 118. Union Pacifi c Railway Comp any v . Chilton . Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. August 6, 1895: Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error. Mr. Lindsay R. Rogers tor defendant in error.
No. 250. Union Pacif ic Railway Company v . Colora do Easter n Rail wa y Company . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. November 14, 1895: Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 103. Union Pacifi c Rail wa y Comp any v . Jones . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. November 14,1895 : Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. John M. Thurston for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. T. Wells and Mr. li, T. McNeal for defendant in error.
No. 245. Union Pacif ic Rail wa y Comp any v . Rees e . Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. April 20, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Samuel Shelldbarger, Mr. J. M. Wilson and Mr. John M. Thurston for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. M. Stockslager and Mr. George C. Heard for defendant in error.
No. 913. United States v . Arnold . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. March 9, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. Hiram T. Gilbert for petitioner. Mr. Levy Mayer opposing.
No. 106. United States v . Aulick . Appeal from the Court of Claims. October 14, 1895 : Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for the appellant. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
No. 249. United States v . Finch . Appeal from the Court of Claims. October 14, 1895 : Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for appellant. Mr. Attorney General for appellant. Mr. J. Altheus Johnson for the appellee.
No. 814. United States v . Harden . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for p. 710the Second Circuit. December 16, 1895: Petition denied. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General Conrad for petitioners. Mr. Charles Curie, Mr. IF. Wickham Smith and Mr. D. I. Mackie, opposing.
No. 108. Unit ed States v . Lovel l . Appeal from the Court of Claims. October 14, 1895: Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for appellant. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for appellants. No appearance for appellee.
No. 700. Unit ed Stat es v . Union Pacif ic Railway Com - pany . Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 23, 1896: Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for appellants. Mr. M. R. Kelly and Mr. A. L. Williams for appellee.
No. 483. United States v . Zucker . Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. May 18, 1896: Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiffs in error, Mr. Abram J. Rose for defendants in error.
No. 965. Walrat h v . Champio n Mining Company . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. April 20, 1896: Petition denied. Mr. James F. Smith for petitioner’ No one opposing.
No. 178. Washin gton State v . Board of Harbor Line Commis sioner s . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. October 14, 1895 : Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. A. H. Holmes for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. C. Jones for defendant in error.
No. 264. Washingt on State v . Board of Tide Land Apprai se rs of What com County . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. April 29, 1896: Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. JZr. W. H. Calkins for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Alfred L. Black for defendants in error.
No. 727. Wayne Lumber Comp any v . Collins . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. May 4, 1896: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. J. N. Morrison and Mr. Warwick Massey Hough for plaintiff in error. Mr. Eleneious Smith for defendants in error.
No. 275. Western Union Telegrap h Company v . Charles - ton . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina. October 14, 1895 : Dismissed with costs on authority of counsel for appellants. Mr. A. T. Smythe for appellant. No appearance for appellees.
No. 257. Western Union Telegrap h Comp any v . Cheste r . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. April 27,1896: Dismissed with costs on the authority of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Silas W. Pettit for plaintiff in error. No appearance for the defendant in error.
No. 235. Wheele r v . Cloyd . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. April 27, 1896: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. 11. Tompkins for appellants. Mr. J. C. Clayton, Mr. Lemuel Skidmore, Mr. Edwin Beecher and Mr. Henry C. Whitney for appellees. ____________
No. 708. Whit e v . Lennig . Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. February 3, 1896: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of p. 712Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300, and Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361. Mr. John E. Roller for plaintiff in error. Mr. Holmes Conrad and Mr. E. II. Conrad for defendants in error.
No. 809. Wilkey alias Davis v . United States . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. March 9, 1896: Judgment affirmed. No appearance for the plaintiff in error. MA Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendant in error.
No. 123. William s v . Wilbur . Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. December 11, 1895 : Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. C. O. Tichenor for plaintiff in error. Mr. Willard Teller for defendant in error.
No. 554. Willman v . Friedman . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho. December 23, 1895 : Dismissed with costs per stipulation. Mr. A. L. Rhodes for plaintiff in error. Mr. Arthur Brown for defendant in error.
No. 726. Yancey v . Ivy . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. May 4, 1896 : Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. J. N. Morrison, Mr. Warwick Massey Hough and Mr. Warwick Hough for plaintiff in error. Mr. George G. Vest for defendant in error.
II.
Summary Statem ent of Busin ess of the Suprem e Court of the Unit ed States for Octobe r Term , 1895.
Original Docket.
Number of cases.......................................................................... 11
Number of cases disposed of..................................................... 5
Leaving undisposed of............................................................... 6
Appellate Docket.-
Number of cases on appellate docket at close of the October Term, 1894, not disposed of.................................... 640
Number of cases docketed during October Term, 1895 . . 382
Total......................................................................................... 1022
Number of cases disposed of October Term, 1895 .... 489
Number of cases remaining undisposed of, showing a reduction of 107 cases . ....................................................533