Circuit Court.
Before Judge Kent.
{"character_count": 3673, "word_count": 642, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9528999924659729], "ccnet_perplexity": [1596.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
July ls -.qlomzo B. Lane and George ~ Crawford vs.
Syvsster Robinson and Grand p. Robnson.-This was
action brought to recover the amount Of judgment
for $6l 81 obtained against defendants 3D. June l84
in the Court OF Common Pleas, for the county OF Erie
State of Ohio. The judgment obtained for pay
Of note Of defendants held by plaintiffs The de-
put in that compromise entered into by
appeared however, on the part the pants that the
ag ment violate n much the costs were with.
aed By the defendants The plaintiffs sued for the fa
in consequence OF the fulment Of the agree
ment The Court charged in favor Of the validity OF the
Judgment which remained in full force in consequence Of
the payment Of the costs but ntimated the finding
make the allowance for S544 SO. The jury did not agree,


The People Seth 7HaytrThis is Of the
erred to Yesterday There are several causes against
for the plaintiffs to the opinion Of the Supreme
Court upon to be made out These are si
mar to and depend upon the principle the cause
tried yesterday before Judge Kent he People Brooks)
The same points taken in that The defend
ants counsel moved for nonsuit on the following
grounds-ls Because the declarations alege that the
demand for the penalty based upon 10 ~ Of
chap. "a, title 4of part OF the Revised statutss; that
22d section in the chapter referred to- This 22d
ton to be found the code published by the Revsors
in 1886 without authority OF law and Is section II OF on
act OF 1884, passed after the publication of the Revised
Statutes.


That the Statute authorizing this suit, gives
medy in derogaton Of common right, and the remedy
must therefore be pursued strictly and the statute mut
be construed strictly That the plaintiffs in their dsca
ration have mistaken the Revised Statutes for the Of


the Revisors the reference former was designed
perhaps for the latter but they admitted by their


and the Stante referred gives such remedy
as this


2nd This is snit for the penalty for non.psyment Of
hospital money and brought in the OF the people,
rhe Statute requires suit for the Hospital money TO be
brought in the o the peoples but the penalty must
be sued Tor by the President the Seamens Fund Retreat


Motion for suit was reserved by the Court for de-
csion.


The defendant proved that he engaged in the coas


ing trade under license issued to him for such purpose,
the authority Of the General Government and that he
mad paid hospital money to the General Govern
for the period for which .this demand made
and his counsel csntended that this good


sfence because, LIST Under the clause Of the Consu
giving to Congress power to regulate be-
the States the authority OF Congress
mariners engaged in the coastng trade supreme and
hence there could be in the States


their power by imposing tax upon mariners called hos
pial money" the State Law being in conflict with H.
must yield, the Federal Constitution, and the laws
passed in pursuance taereo the supreme law Of the
land,


The Court suggested that the opinion Of the Supreme
Court should he taken upon this constitutions question:
and verdict entered accordingly.
w. X. Thorne and l. White for defendants; Messrs
Tucker and Craft for plaintiffs.


Frederick Bdydon AZ ofs Samuel Coi-This was an
action judgment in the Circuit Court d. G. Verdict
Tor plaintiff, S20i3 81, with damages and costs.
William Bigeiop James Hasfins-This was On
estimated $3.50 taken 10th September, ls43
judgment The plaintiff claimed the horse a. his pro-
pery purchased from party named Baird The defence
put in was that there change OF possession and
that the transfer Bigelow fraud sealed verdict
will be rendered this forenoon.