The Arkansas banner., 1849-09-11

wuu oulisa up fer hsarlns anz ssy uslur nstsnisk. usnt % ens af fhons saightussd JuEisss ssuid tsl fur his lils whs wns Painsr sr defendant Al frsi ! unS ai lnm mysulf so undp1usnnd the ruaI Fsai- tion vf ths eass but sgera IIEts exsminaEau found that shsrp w.s nc plaintiff ssr ssssna4ut ia the court bslow. ns ksai jndEDsRf. sr6kr CT decree from which sn appeal woald lie snd the xbeis mystery vaaiahsa sntirsiy- I suw st ones that Lawson bsaiy advissd aud tAss selther hlHsnslf nDr has asaorneys knsw how to gss him tate eenrt. Whai els esala the esss have dans. other thas dinratas ts ssn-asscript fer want sf jarsdietisai This waa truly diagraosfsl proceeding sa the part of fsora 'msmbers of the Bar. and had it not bee for fe great indagenee sf the esur4 ea that meme- rahir ooeasiOn. they woulG have fouHd shumssises withest lieenSe 10 practice iaw. sad woais hsse bces driven buck upea thsir reserved righis. I come now tS aActAer specification. Hsa- n.-- -Ia Webb "a Hanger asd Winston, 2 Anrk. l2s the eoart, by DiSkiassn J <, had said II s well set ted principle thai unless Il appears afSSmatively npoh the ruesrd thsf the dsfeEdant was regularly brought into ia ncssrsAucs with tle stztatp- " PrVyisions regulating the mode 0f bEiRgisg tisns oT that he eonssntes proceed udthout pre- cess notirs, the court exercise any jaris diction the sabect mafisr;' and farther they held the objection fstEi every stage of se cause and that ii could not be eurad by any subsequent proceeding" and said ssths rule that want of notie is fatal, is nnifsrmy sustained by all the snthOri- tiea." 6c Tsy farther say that '.aiisr this ceci- siOn was made the qa-stion faily argued before the court Ia Gsy vs Hanger and Wfnstoa, 3 Ark 442." The gentlemen did not dssiga te tell yea kew ther 0EerpOwerRg Hrga@eu succeeded in this latter cass, but would fAin leave the imprsssisn that il worked most msnstrous caaage in the decixiOh eF ihe court. If such was the fact, fhe report Uf the ePfuion utterly fails to show it- Te spinion does Prove thing, however, and that Is that the whole argument, lucid was, wholly Iost as if had not the rsno,est applicability to fhe facts Of the case they were presented to the court, The re- cord ia thai case showed Afrmatively that the de- Fenaant had actually appeared and ip&erposed his plea. and Of question eoala arise as to the writ or the service Now yea will perceive that the whole of his smmuaisi0n is equally losa apon the case of Wsbb vs- Haugcr and Winston.
 They have given you several columns of aathori- ty to prove that if the circuit eSari soald render judgment against yeu for len thousand deliar and thai too without yoar having had the least tce Of the suit or processing. yea never avoid the consequences of such Judgment nnless ycn CAB prove mere negative and show sy competent proof that yon never had notice. To establish this poSs toa they have ransacked all the Reports of the common law courts of England. which BOt only courts of general jurisdiction, bat which courts cord shall not follow the patriots in the course "A s1.s ' deny that Ii is good law enough ia cases where Ii eoald properly apply. Tue legai iaIsBdmsni claim ec ny them most clearly holds in alt o general jurisdiction, and here the writ and upoa il form no part Of the record ia the cause. But let suppose the writ and return 10 be A port of the record ia the cause. 1T this is con- cedec, then the writ is ef equal dignity eyi- dsnce with the judgment entry itself, and if from te Bpoh the writ il sall zfirmatirey appear thsf tBe defendant was not sued with process aad fae judgment entry Et the same lime expressly states that the defendant did p0 appear bat made de- faait, should like to know, ,fn the of all that law, and reason, and common often iHFOk- se by the patriots, what other proof the court would require of the fact that legal service had been had upoa the party. Bat here the patriots
 
 ths, their whole plaa and purpose might be rustra- tsG unless they e0ula, by their great ingenuity, manag. obFiafe ii, have against another saw yer. They fOressw that, uaiess they could over tarn another decision of that same old court made years since and acqarsced iR, and even spplAuded kz themselves wBsu occasion required it, the aaale- gy between he courts of general jurisdiction in England and those of our own State woald suddenly disappear aud their wei maured and heart cherish cd p4n would. though well cODcocted, prove stier abortion. Here then with them comes .he tug of war; but why hesitate to the means when the nna.rsble resolve has been formed to disgrace th. Judges and degrade the highest court in our and Well, here is enterprise requiring bold sess. but the fiat has gone forth. and it must be done regardless Of consequences. Well, gentlemen, you cannot sssci il without setting aside and hold ing for Soaght Ana.her decision of that same old court, made and PrOnOu need after solemn argument, and mature deliberations; and that too by RiHgo Dickinson and Lacy. and years bsfore the doomed Victin was dr1nnsd of in connection with the Sa- preIse Bench.
 The case to which aliade Is tiast cf Renner rs. Read, 3 Arkansas Reports, 33s. Now, those same pzriDs relation to that decision sad that shete IS anather poini winch bears uT,oa this question IL wisi be perceived that in the E5gish cases the question siwxys arose upon what wss or was not stated n the record If the record sad process served. that was conclusive. The process itself formed no part os the record" They also cite authorities frn inc English courts h hs point. hai the court. h the very case Of Rsh- her Fs- Read. 5 Ass. ass. held that tie writ WAS recosd and came ap paf of The record of inc and thai oyer of | was necessary. This IS ad- niEsed ey ths patriots themselves to have b@eA the decisioa in thst case, and they further admit that they s.teFwaFcs adhered to their opinion. aud bAt has teen acisd ever since as sstfied law. Is ii not very remarkable that tAese decisions, witch