held that there was neither a law of the state forbidding the tion of business on that day, nor a general u,sage in grafted into the commercial and maritime law forbidding the, unlading of vessels. See, also, Powhattan Steam-boat Co. v. Appomattox R. Co. 24 How. 247. In neither of these cases was it intimated that the Sunday laws were inappliable to maritime transactions. Neither is this case affected by the fact that a portion of each voyage was to be performed within Canadian waters, and that the law of Canaaa upon the subject of Sunday observance is not proven. Both the inception and completion of performance were to take place in this state, and the mere circumstance that, in the course of their trips, the steamers must pass beyond the boundaries of the state, does not free the contract from its taint of illegality. A. new trial must be denied.
(Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.
PnACTTCE-CONTINUANCE-AnSENCE OF J\fATETIIAL WITNESS.
Where a dcfendant, good rca son to believc that his co-defenrlnnt, who is n res'dent of Canada and has not bcen served. will j!C present at the trial as hc ha", promiscd, in reliance on such promisl' lIas failcd to take his testimony by deposition, and the testimony of the co-defcndant is material. a continuance of the casc may be granted to allow such testimony to be taken.
At Law. Atwater J: Atwater, tor plaintiffs. A. R. Lewis, for defendants. J., (orally.) A motion is made in this case for a continuance on account of the absence of a material WItness. The material witness is the co-defendant, who was not served with process. The suit was brought against Brown & Brown, consisting of Calvin Brown and his brother. The plaintiff resides in Minneapolis, and the co-defendant not served resides in Canada. The suit is brought upon a bill of exchange, in which both parties are interested. Issue was joined in the state court of the county of Hennepin some time in February, and the case was removed to this conrt some time in the month of J aly. The co-defendant, who was not served, it appears, according to the affidavit of the party served, was in Minneapolis in the latter part of February, this year. He stated to the co-defendant that he would be on hand ready to be a witness, and to be examined as a witness for him in the case. Calvin Brown, who was served, supposed and ne had reason to belieye that his co-defendant, who was equally interested in the result of the controversy, would be present in attendance as a witness, as he bad so stated, and in view of that
UNITED STATES V. MARQUETTE, H. & O. R. CO.
fact his deposition was not taken, neither washe served with a summons to appear at this term, when be was in this state in February. I think, from all the facts stated in the case, that there is no doubt about the materiality of the testimony of the co-defendant, Brown, who is now in Canada. His brother was led to believe, even as late as this month,-about the sixth or seventh of this month,-that he would be in attendance, by a correspondence that he had with him. In view of these facts, stated in the affidavit, notwithstanding objection being made by plaintiff to the continuance of this case, it will have to go over the term. The motion for continuance is granted:
H. & O. R. Co.
July 23, 1S83.)
((:'ircuit Court, lV. D. M!c'ligan, N. D.
Action of Debt. John TV. Stone, for the United States. TV. P. Healey and J. L. Stackpole, for the defendant. WITHEY, J. The question in this case is whether a railroad company, in 1871, was required to pay an income tax on its undivided profits used for construction. In toat year the Marquette & Ontonagon Railroad Company owned and operated a road in the upper peninsula of Michigan. In 1872 the road was sold and reorgnnized