Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-04-08

MIR. ID. suggested the propriety of postponing the
question upon the first article for the purpose of pro-
ceedng to the third.
Mr. President observed, that it would he preferable
to allow the managers call their witnesses, and pro-
coed to the examination of them. The the trial
was likely to take would then appear, and the court
would be better able decide with regard u the order
OF proceeding.
Mr.. Blythe requested that Ebenezer Wright be call
ed. On being called, Mr. Wright answered and came
forward.
Mr.. Porter requested to know what was intended to
DE proven by the witness III IT was intended TO offer
paro testimony relation to matters that appeared of
record he (A1r. P) would certainly object to it.
hr. Blythe The managers propose To prove by this
witness, that Judge Franklin the habit of deferring
the delivery ot opinions upon cases for two six aud
twevenOnts after argumenth had by counsel upon them
and that whether the important or unin,por-
tant
Mr.. Porter entered into an argument TO show that
tins testimony ought not to be admitted, inasnuch as
the records of the court the best evidence i'm the
case and 1T would be violation of every principle of
law to receive parol TESTIMONY.
Mr. Blythe replied that the witness was offered TO
prove the habit of representation ndulged i'm by Judge
Franklin, in the delivery of opinions after arrument-
III the law and IFS administration intricate and
mysterious that the officers of the court did not know
what cases were important and what unimportant what
points were easy to be determined and what difficult,
II would be better to destroy the whole system at
once.
Mr.. Porter rcjoned. The rules of evidence that OBJ
tanned IN other courts, where the smallest
IN dispute ought to be observed the highest tribunal
1.-THE State where the character of high judicial officer
was at stake To depart from these rules would lead
tins court into iarbvrinth of difficulty. Should the
testimony be admitted there would be no end to the
examinations; for what LAWYER thinks important
another employed the opposite does not consider so
The Judges OF The Supreme Court themselves had di-
vded IN opinion cases considered by some uunporant
and easy to he determined.
Mr. Duncan now moved 10 POSTPONE the first article
the purpose o proceeding to the third and assigned
ms reason at length, in favor oft.
Mt. Harrington opposed the motion; and Mi. For
ward supported it,
The motion agreed to.
Motion G. Rogers called TO testify to the
charge in the third article, and his examination took TN
the remainder OF the morning session.
When tins paper put press in the afternoon the
court was engaged in the examination OF Christian Bach
man CLERK in the Office of the Prothonoarv of Ian
caster county upon the charge in the third article.
1t may here, be well enough give the heads of the
articles OF impeachment preferred against Judge Frank
lin.
frticIe l. charges him with the habual DELAY of de-
ctding upon Gases, after argument of counsel.
sit'cfe2, with not conforming the act of assembly
IN decrg upon proceedings of justices Of the peace re-
moved by certjOrdr3 TO the Court of Common Pleas
1f'cie }, with want of integrity altering the entry
of issue i'll the of Barr and Withers VS. Withers
and Pelan.
article /, for leaving the Court of Over and Ter
miner IN York county (when his presence necessary
to constitute thee ourt) after delivering his charge to
the Jury OF accepting at the term, the verdict de-
vercd by tue jury in his ABSENCE and then passing
Inlnal sentence of punishment upon the prisoner &c
! [Chronicie.