Rowland and chllorged to lohnson.It is now insisted that the smaller draft was improperly paid, or, at all events, improperly charged to Johnson. It is apparent that Moore drew the smaller draft for a sum in addition to the amount bid for the stock of goods. For what object the money was drawn does not appear, and it is somewhat remarkable that neither party saw fit to Moore while upon the witness stand with reference to this item. As Rowland, through his agent, Moore, expended the sum of $507.50 and assumed the right to charge it to Johnson, and as it clearly appears that it was noi paid in satisfaction ·of the bid, it was the duty of Rowland to show by the proof that it was a proper charge against Johnson, and since he has failed to do so it cannot be allowed. The other disputed items in the accounts of Rowland against Johnson seem to have been legit. imate expenditures in connection with the management, care, preservation, and sale of the stock of goods, and they will therefore be allowed. ,The case will be referred to a master to state the account from th6 evidence, and to report what, if any, balance remains in the hands of the defendant Rowland with which, in accordance with the prin-' ciples of this opinion. he should be charged as trustee for Ule oomplainants as creditol's of defendant lohnson.
Rmm PAOltBT Co. ". EST.lTII others, Wharf Lessees.April, 1882.)
(lNrcuie Gout", /l. D. LouUiaM,
To decide whether the rate of wharfage tlxed by ordinance of the city of New .Orleans is or is not greater than a fair and reasonable compensation for the use of the city's. whar:ves, the evidence 8ubmItted with a rule for a preliminary injunction must enable the court to say, as a matter of fact, that such greater charge is made against the particular veBBels of thecomplainani. U the evidence does Dot do this the preliminary injunction will W refused. lAathttrl v. AiUA, 9 FBD. RBl". 679, followed.
On a motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the eollectiOD. of 'wharfage dues.
-Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq'l...0f the New Orlean8 bar. Bee 16 Fed. Rep. 890, and 7 Sup. Ct. .tI.ep. llO7.
UNITED STATES.. '11. SMITH.
Oharles S. Rice, John H. Kennard, W. W. Howe, and, S. S. Prenti8s,
for eomplainants. , W. S. Benedict, and George Denegre, for defeudants. BILLINGS, D. J. We think the principles of applicaUle to this case are correctly stated in the opinion by the circuit judge in Leathv. Aiken, 9 FED. REP. 679. The sole question in this cause into which we ean inquire is this: Viewing the lease as an ordina.nce simply fixing the rate of wharfage,ahdexcluding all imposition for the support of lights or police, is the rate of wharfage greater than a fair and compensation for the use of the city's wharves? The matter is full of intricate difficulties. We can deal with it only as a judicial question, presented by a ·case in court with reference to an imposition upon specific property. We cannot take it up and decide it upon the general consideration which would be proper in case the matoor was pending before a legislative body 8S tb permitting such a lease. The case must be heard and decided bt:us upon evidence; that evidence must come from the bill of complaint, exhibits, and affidavits; and to authorize the granting of the injunction must enable us to say, as a matter of fact, that a grea.ter charge is made against the particular vessels of the complainants therein than is a just .' . . We do not find that the evidence submitte'd to us u,poIl,;the hearing of this preliminary motion enables us to say this. The motion must, therefore, be refused. PARDEE, C. J., concurring.
STATES v. SmTlI.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Kentucky.
CRIMINAL LAW-MAILING INDIWENT MATTER.;f
The term" indecent" in section 3893 of the Rev:is.ed Statutes, in connection with the offence defined in said section ofmaihng any book, letter, envelope, postal card, etc.· containing any indecent, etc., delineations, epithets, etc., either written or printed, taken with the history of the upon subject, means immodest, impure; and language which is coarse or unbecoming, or even profane, is not within the inhibition of the act. '.
Oeo. M. ThomlU, U. S. the United States. Ba1'ret a: Brown, for defendaRt.· ,