The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-05-10

Local Matters.
The COL HUGHES CAsE.-Ths is an action for
false imprisonment and assault and battery,
brought by John It. Davis, soldier, under the
command of Col Hughes in Mexico II was called
up in the Circuit Court, on Monday, when Mr..
Bradley, for the defendant, stated that he could
not to trial unless certain facts were admitted
l. That Col. Hughes the civil and military
Governor of Jalapa, at the time of the grievance
complained ofby the plaintiff; and2 That certain
Mexican woman named Cleto was dead the OBJ
ject being to introduce secondary evidence of
complaint made by her to the defendant, in his
character of governor, charging the plaintiff with
an attempt to violate her person. He said that
General Patterson had failed to return to the War
Office the order appointing Col. Hughes governor
and that for this reason and because the return of
a commission from Mexico did not sufficiently
show the death of the woman in question, con-
tinuance would be necessary unless these facts
were admitted; the defence being that the punish
ment complained Of by the plaintiff had been in
icted for the offence above mentioned, by order of
| the defendant governor
Mr.. Carlisle, for the plaintiff, suggested that there
was no plea of justification filed nor did he think
good plea could be passed upon the facts stated.
He desired, too that these facts could be given
evidence in Washington. He, therefore, suggested
that the refusal of the admissions claimed would
amount to nothing, the facts, if they could be
proved, would not be admissible in evidence. If
So the court would not grant continuance to
enable the defendant TO prove them.
An affidavit Of the defendant and statement
being presented, MIR. Bradley and Mr.. Carlisle
! argued the question: whether the facts offered TO
be proved could avail the defendant either in jus
LITIGATION or mitigation. The declaration and aft
davit Of the plaintiff were read, upon which il
appeared that the plaintiff, being soldier in the
battalion raised by Charles Lee Jones, esq, and
afterwards put under the command Of the defen-
dant, was, by order Of the defendant, SEIZED tied
toa gun and whipped on his bare back with seven
ty. FIVE lashes. Mr.. Bradley maintained that the
facts relied on by him, II proved were a complete
justification. The rules and articles Of war did
not affect the case. Martial law had been declared.
This was an "unwritten law" The defendant
was charged with iis execution, and with the main
tensnce Of order and the punishment Of offences.
Here was an offence against the law Of and
the law Of nations. The punishment was within
his discretion, and he not answerable for IL
except express malice be proved and that II not
charged. But, II no justification. IL was mitga-
ton. II was error ofjudgment merely. lie had
| right 10 show with what motive he acted, &c.
Mr. Carlisle, on the other hand, cited the act Of
Congress prohibiting logging in the army, except
on conviction Of descrtion by court-martal. He
said the articles Of the martial Law Of the
army. He relied also upon the order Of General
Scott proclaiming martial law in Mexico, as e1-
| pressly directing that persons charged with this
pretended offence Of the plaintiff should be tried by
military commission, 10 be constituted and gov.
erned like court martial, and whose sentences
were 10 be reviewed and approved; and that tho
same order gave no power, and could give no power,
even for such commission, 10 sentcnce a soldier 10
seventy five lashes his bare back; still less did
II authorize such punishment by officer, without
trial; that Colonel Hughes, therefore, could not
justify his conduct by the facts offered lie had no
right himself TO try 10 punish the alleged offence
at ALL and neither he nor any one had the right to
infiict this punishment, which was prohibited by
law. Neither could IL be any mitigation TO show
that he had assumed to act Judge and illegally
10 infict punishment in such case. Il wa
patton; and this was not mitigation, but aggraya-
ton. He was trcspasser from the beginning. and
his intention could not be proved.
Mr.. Bradley replied: lie insisted that the articles
Of war, and the act Of Congress prohibiting fog
ging, did not apply 10 the for which defendant
had punished plsintiff-which not military
offence provided for in the articles He denied the
authority Of General Scott 70 prescribe military
commissions. Before he concluded his argument
the court adjourned.
On Tuesday the argument was resumed, and oc-
cupied all the morning. The court adjourned ill
Thursday.
On Thursday the case was again taken up, and
the motion for n continuance further argued by Mr.
Bradley; when Mr.. Carlisle stated that the only
original ground upon which continuance had
been asked was the admission Of two facts, and, to
remove this, be was willing 70 admit such evidence
as the War Department sfFords, respecting the
authority Of Colonel Hughes, and also the secondary
testimony which, Il was alleged, the death Of the
woman ClSto made necessary. lie maintained that
the ends Of justice would be defeated by the con-
tnuancc Of the case, the health Of his client and
his pccuniary circumstances rendered improbable
his ability 10 prosecute his suit at future time.
Mr.. Bradley stated that, inasmuch az the plain
tiff had removed beyond the jurisdiction Of the
kcourt, he would move for a rule 10 require him TO
give bonds for the payment Of costs. lie also read
paper setting forth additional reasons why con .
tinusnce should be granted
The court deferred rendering a decision till this
morning.
,THr SrRsxrs 6r wAssiraTos We have been
urged by many persons 10 direct attention 10 sewn
raj localities in our city in which improyementW
repair Is needed but we think II fair toward The
property holders and street commissioners, when
espcdient, to first apprise them of the complaints
preferred This explanation is intended chiefly
for tho persons who have communicated their griev
ances TO ms.