5534-Chicago Taylor Printing Press Co 5712-Greentree vs Newberg vs Lowell 5535-Friedman vs Nelson et al 5552-Spinetti vs Brignardello et al 5557-Clark et al vs City and County of San Francisco et al THURSDAY, AUGUST 1st. 5713--Dowd vs Clarke 5723--Dyer vs Treadwell et al THURSDAY, AUGUST 15th 5731-Stone vs Garnett 5736-Norton vs McCourtney et al 5558-Davis et al vs Spring Valley Water 5739-People ex rel Alvord vs Pope et al Works et al 5565-Reed vs Goldstein et al 5740--Pope et al vs City and County of San Francisco et al 5566-Young vs City and County of San 5757--Bacon vs Robson et al Francisco MONDAY, AUGUST 19th 5567-Kitz et al vs Lady Bryan Mining 5760-People vs Pittsburg Railroad Co. Company et al 5573-Scher vs Himmelmann MONDAY, AUGUST 5TH 5575-Stoddart vs Burge 5579-City and County of San Francisco vs Spring Valley Water Works 5582-People vs Felton 5770-Chapman vs Quinn 5771-McKeen vs Turney et al 5772-McCombe vs Lawrence 5778-People ex rel Att'y Gen'l vs San Francisco and P't Lobos Road Co. TUESDAY, AUGUST 20th. 5781-Herman vs Haffenegger. San 5787-Rider et al vs Edgar 5595-Taylor et al vs Brenham, exec'x et al 5598-Raisch vs City and County of Francisco TUESDAY, AUGUST 6TH 5601-Vigoureux vs Murphy 5605-Black vs Sprague et al 5624-De Witt et al vs Hastings 5629-Comper vs Rowe 5632-Brandow vs Whitney et al WEDNESDAY, August 7th 5644-Le Roy et al vs Dunckerly et al THURSDAY, AUGUST 8TH. 5661-Salisbury et al vs Shirley et al MONDAY, AUGUST 12TH 5667-Tobleman vs Reay et al' 5673-Murray vs Green et al 5679-Noe vs Splivalo et al vs Herbert et al 5789-Bancroft et al vs Heringhi et al 5798-Wetherbee et al, vs Williams et al 5799-Alvarado et al vs Celis. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21st 5805-Himmelmann vs City and Co of 5807-Diggins vs Reay et al THURSDAY, august 22d. Stockton & Copperopolis R R Co. 5814-People ex rel Com. of Transporta tion vs. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. 5815-People ex rel Com. of Transporta tion vs Central Pacific R. R. Co. 5819-S F Savings Union vs Johnson et al MONDAY. AUGUST 26th. 5821-In the matter of the estate of Lucca Radovich, deceased 5681--Hibernia Savings and Loan Society 5822-Cornwall vs Davis 5694-Curry vs Alvarado et al TUESDAY, AUGUST 13th 5686-Merle vs Thorpe et al 5695--Springer vs Rice 5696-Commercial Bank vs Baldwin 5700-Ellis et al vs Kneeland et al 5707--Potter et al vs Mercer et al WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14TH 5709-Rondebush vs Gladding 5868-Hutchinson et al vs State Investment and Insurance Company. 5870-Shay vs McNamara 5771-Roper et al vs Cotter et al 5872-Holladay vs Hare. THURSDAY, AUGUST 29th 5873-McDermott et al. vs. Mitchell. 5877-Conniff vs Kahn. 5879-In the matter of changing and modifying the grade of Montgomery avenue, etc 5881-Parsons vs Armstrong WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11th. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12th. 5882-Durkee vs Central Pacific R. R. Co. 6018-Hooper et al vs Flood et al MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2D 5883-Porter vs Woodward et al 5887-Greer vs Tripp 5889--Sackett vs Johnson 5892-Morse vs Alameda County 5895-O'Neil vs O'Neil et al TUESDAY. SEPTDMBER 3D 5898-Board of Education of the city MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16th. 6020-Helbing et al vs Svea Fire Ins Co. 6027-Payne et al vs McKinley et al 6028-Jewell et al vs McKinley et al 6029-Burke vs Burr et al 6030-Dingley et al vs Greene et al and county of S. F. vs Keenan et al 6039-Sinon vs Sullivan 5899-Board of Education of, the city and 6043-Parrott vs Floyd et al county of S. F. vs Martin et al 6044-Harpending vs Myers et al 6083-Board of Education of the city and 6054-Brady vs Kelly · county of S. F. vs Donohue et al 6055-Jordan vs Hubert, Treasurer, etc. 5906-Roussett vs Green 5907-Marlow vs Barlew et al WEDNSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4th 5909--Scott vs Dyer et al 5911-Page vs Williams 5912-Behrmann vs Barto WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18th. 6057-Kellogg vs Mayer, administrator 6058-In the matter of the estate. of Ed mund Brooks, deceased. 6070-Wood vs Orford et al 6071-Miller vs Sharp et al 5913-Stewart et al vs Mahoney Mining 6075-Boingueres vs Boulon Company et al 5914--Smith vs Tyler THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5th 5927-Petersen et al vs Evans et al 5928--Shay vs Lady Bryan Mining Com pany et al 5939-Fitch et al vs Frisbie et at 5945 Salter vs Baker et al 5952-Upstone vs Weir MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9th 5956-Barber et al vs Stanford et al 5957-Main et al vs Hilton et al 5958-McLeran vs McNamara et al 5962--Speirs vs Duane et al THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19th. 6079-Chamberlain vs Pacific Wool Growing Company 6080-In the matter of the estate of Albert Berry, deceased 6082-Smith vs East Branch Mining Co. 6087--Helm vs Underhill 6088-Douglas et al vs Fulda et al MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23d. 6090-Guerin vs City and County of San Francisco 6092-Wilke vs Cohn 6093--Grady et al vs Porter 5969 Page, administratrix, vs Tucker 6097-Hoff vs Funkenstein TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24th. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25th. VOL. I. JULY 6, 1878. No. 15. Legal Notes. IMPORTANT DECISIONS BY THE WASHINGTON COURT OF CLAIMS.-The Court of Claims rendered an important decision in the case of the Union Pacific Railroad against the Government. The Court decided that the Government is entitled to recover 5 per centum of the road's net earnings from the 6th of November, 1869, to the 5th of November, 1874, inclusive, amounting to the sum of $1,367,716, and that the company is entitled to recover $593,627 as one-half of the compensation due from the Government for services rendered, and that for the difference between these sums, to wit, $774,089, judgment is rendered in favor of the Government and against the claimants. The Court also rendered a decision in the case of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company against the Government, to the effect that the claimants are entitled to recovery for a voyage of the steamhsip City of Peking in the sum of $41,666, for carrying the United States mails between San Francisco and China, in 1875. Judgment to the above amount is given in favor of the claimants and against the Government. OPINION IN THE GARDNER CASE.--In the Sacremento District Court Judge Denson rendered a written opinion in the case of the People vs. Robert Gardner, Ex Surveyor-General of the State of California. The opinion is very carefully and ably written, and reviews all the points presented by counsel and the accounts of Mr. Gardner during his term of office. In conclusion Judge Denson finds that the balance due from Robert Garbner to the people of the State is $3, 261 89. APPEAL OF THE DUPONT ST CASE.-6140-Maurer et al Vs Mitchell' Tax Collector, etc.-Upon motion of T. B. Bishop, of counsel for petitioners, and on filing petition and affidavit for a writ of prohibition: Ordered that William Mitchell, Tax Collector of the city. and county of San Frsociseo, do desist and refrain from further proceedings in the matter of the collection of the tax or assessment, commonly called the Dupont-street assessment, levied to pay the expenses of the widening of Dupont street, to said city and county, and from selling any lands to pay said tax or assessment until further order of this Court, and to show cause before this Court on Tuesday, the 9th day of July, A. D. 1878, at 11 o'clock, A. M., at the court room of this Court, in said city and county of San Francisco, why he should not be absoulutely restrained from any further proceedings in that matter, and that an alternative writ of prohibition issue out of this Court to said William Mitchell, as prayed for in said petition, returnable on said 9th day of July, A. D. 1878, at 11 o'clock, A. M., before this Court, 'at the said court room thereof. NILES, J. A CURIOUS INSTANCE of the misapplication of the English language occurred in the course of the investigation of the charges against some of the officers of the Wisconsin Deaf and Dumb Institution. The testimony of one witness, a male mute, was set down as worthless, because it was entirely "hearsay evidence." In view of the fact that the witness could by no possibility either "hear" or "say," the unfitness of the term "heresay" is obvious. WORK RESUMED in the State Printing Office Monday, and is expected to last about six months. INTERNATIONAL LITERARY CONGRESS-PARIS June 27.The International Literary Congress has accepted as a basis for its decisions, the principle advocated by Victor Hugo in his speech, urging that a book once published becomes in part the property of the Society, and after the author's death his family cannot prevent its re-issue, but the author's heirs should be entitled to from five to ten per cent, of the profits. That in case there are no heirs, the profits should revert to the State, to be applied to the encouragement of young writers. The Congress resolved that the right of the author in his work is not a legal concession, but a form of property, which legislation should guarantee to his heirs and representatives in perpetuity; and that after the expiration of the term of copyright fixed by existing laws in different countries, any body may freely republish literary works on condition of paying a percentage to the heirs. THE SHASTA COUNTY GRAND JURY has been examining into the matter of liquor licenses iu that county,and find that dealers selling liquor in less quantities than one quart, had nothing but a trader's licence, while others supposed a Federal license was all they needed. The Jury found presentments against twenty-two persons for misdemeanors for violating the law in regard to county licencenses. and show that the action was not intentional, but through ignorance of the law. Section 3,382 of the Political Code provides for licencenses to traders and livery stable keepers, and section 3,383, says the sale of liquors and wines under preceding secton must not be in less quantities than one quart, etc. A PARIS COURT has decided that where a shop-keeper show an engraving in a frame marked, "This engraving—frances,” the frame in which it is shown goes with the engraving-that an offer of this sort made to the public is as binding as it would be if made to an individual, |