MARTINDALE V. WAAB.
refers only to such goods as he has ordered. He is under no obligation to devote his time or energies in developing the market. He may have done so, as he avers, but the other party has no power to compel him. '' A contract thus unequal is not enforced by injunction. The reason is obvious. If I were to enjoin the defendant from selling to anyone but the plaintiff, I could not require the latter, on his part, to buy a single roll of peg wood of the defendant. See Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339; Shrewsbury, etc., Ry. Go. v. 'Northlcestern By. Go. 6 H. L. 118. ' Motion for injunction denied. Restraining order dissolved..
W us and others;
(Circuit Court, D. Minne8ota.
Where the court has passed upon all the issues necessary to determine the rights of the parties a motion for rehearing will be denied.
2. SAllE-'RULES OF PRACTICE.
A state law requiring a judge to give his in writing upon every iesue made by the pleadings is not binding on the federal courts.
3. B.um-RULES OF PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURTS.
The equity practice and procedure of the federal courts is regulated by the rules promulgated by the supreme court of the United States.
Motion for Rehearing. A. F. Foster, for motion. A. F. Scott, against. NELSON, D. J. The motion is denied. The court passed upon all the issues necessary to determine the rights of the parties, and gave a decree in favor of the plaintiff. The law of the state of Minnesota requiring a judge to give his decision in writing upon every issue made by the pleadings is not binding upon the federal courts. The equity practice, as restricted by the rules promulgated by the supreme court of the United States, regulates the mods of proceedings, and no law of congress imposes upon the judge any Buch duty as indicated. When the main issue which controls the result is determined, all others presented by the pleadings are, by implication, decided in harmony therewith. See note on page 580.
BALDRIDGE and others.
(Circuit Oourt, N. D. Alabama. April Term, 1882.\
LAW-NEGLECT OF DUTy-UNAtrfHOUJZED ACTS.
For an officer, under Rev. St. § 5515, to neglect to perform a duty or violate a duty imposed by law is one thing, and to do unauthorized acts with intent to affect the election, or the result thereof, is another thing, and is made a distinct and separate offence by the statute.
In case of neglect or refusal to perform a duty, or the violation of a auty, it is an offence under the statute without being coupled with the intent specified in this section; but unauthorized acts, which may in themselves be innocent if coupled with the intent to affect the election, are made by this section criminal acts.
3. SAME-INTENT EsSENTIAL TO (''RIME.
When the proof shows that an unlawful act was done, the law presumes the intent, and proof of the act .being a violation of law is proof of the intent.
FALSE CERTIFCATE OF ELECTION-WHAT MUST BE SHOWN.
In an indictment against officers of election for fraudulently making a false certificate of the result of the election, it must be shown that the ballot-box had been opened and tampered with, and false ballots substituted for tr.ue ballots. 5.
An officer is bound to use that care and diligence in the discharge of his duties that a conscientious and prudent man, acting under a just sense of his obligations, would exercise under the circumstances of a particular case; and if he fails and neglects to do so he is culpable.
6. STATUTE OONSTRUED.
Whel:e the statnte prescribes that the inspectors of election, immediately upon the closing of the polls, shall count out the votes so polled, its object manifestly is that there should be no unnecessary delay; that upon the closing of the polls the next thing to be done is the counting out of the votes; and that no other business shall intervene to occupy and distract the attention of the officers in charge until the matter in hand shall be consummated.
Violation of United States Election Laws. W. H. Smith, U. S. Dist. Atty., L. W. DlJ,y, and PaulL. Jones, for the prosecution. L. P. Witlker, P. H. Flumes, John D. Branden, and Lawrence Cres80r Coleman, for defendants. BRUCE, D. J., (charging jury.) The defendants are indicted under section 5515 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which has reference to crimes against the elective franchise:
" Section 5515. Every officer of an election at which any representative or delegate in congress is voted for, whether such officer of election be appointed or created by or under any law or authority of the United States, or by or under any state, territorial, district, or municipal law or authority, who neg-