The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-11-06

From the Boston DAILY AdDertiser.
In the circuit court Of the United States ON Mon
day, November Sd, Judge Curtis delivered an
opinion on the plea Of Robert Morris Il will be
recoIectcd that Mr.. Morris. at the March term of
the district court, indicted for aiding and Abet
ting the escape of Shadrach; that he pleaded not
guilty Of the charge set forth, and the jury was
empaneled to try him. That, after the trial had
proceeded some time, the district attorney moved
for permission TO impeach juror, which, being
allowed, he was Withdrawn by the order of the
court.
At the June term of the court the case was
RENTED by Judge Sprague to the circuit court, rs
containing important and difficult questions of
law. This waa done by virtue of the statute of
1916, chap. 50, sec. 3. The case so removed,
other portion OF the record having been sent up
except the indictment; and, when arraigned at
this term OF the circuit court, instead of pleading
the general issue, not guilty, the defendant put in
special plea, affecting the legality OF the Temis-
sion of the case, and the authority of the court to
entertain jurisdiction of the To this plea the
Government demurred and the defendant joined.
The arguments had on Friday, and yeaer-
day morning the opinion OF The court was deiv-
cred. The length of the opinion, which occupied
more than an, hour in delivery, as well as the
nature of the objection taken depending upon
the construction Of the statute, will prevent
our doing more than to give the result at which
the court arrived. That the words sin like
manner" used in the Sd section OF the act, did not
embrace the time at which the indictment might be
reunited; but that the court had the power, at any
time, when in it's opinion important and difficult
questions arose, to remit the The counsel for
the defendant had argued that the indictment was
to be sent up before proceedings were had, and at
other time, but, il such the fac thew could
the court know that the case presented such impor-
tant and difficult questions IL had also been ar
gucd that Judge might arbitrarily break off the
case, and send it to the court above, when the de-
PENDANT had acquired rights to exceptions under
the trial. The practical answer to this was that,
ahn linda SI,I
the case, 1t would be favor to the defendant TO
have his cause tried before another judge than
one unjusty disposed. But the legal answer
was, that the whole proceeding in CONFORM
ity with tine statute of 1902, and afforded addi-
tional securities, by carrying the to the Su-
preme Court, in of difference of opinion be-
tween the judges trying the cause. Again, it had
been suggested that the defendant had been de-
prived of advantages acquired in the court below,
which he lost by the remission of the indictment
without the record of the whole proceedings; but
the advantages suggested did not appear the
record of the district court They would arise, If at
ALL dehores the record, and OF course could not be
transmitted TO this court by the remission of the
whole record So that the question resolved itself
to this: Did the matter of the plea, the removal of
Juror, amount to matter of bar to another action?
The opinion proceeded to show from the cases that
such was not the case, but that the juror WAS
rightly Withdrawn by the court from the panel
That the right to challenge was to be exercised at
particular time a rule for the orderly conduct of
causes, not to defeat the ends of justice.
Inc JudgHent oi the court was, tnat ,iie &c
murrer be sustained, and the plea adJudged bad.
The important question then arose, whether the
defendant, having rested upon the sufcicncy of
his plea, and that falling, he should be allowed to
plead again, or the district attorney moved,
that Judgment should be entered against him Oh
the matters alleged in the indictment. In deciding
this point, the court remarked that the plea of the
defendant anomalous in its character, and, had
it been adjudged good, would not have constituted
bar to the action, since If the action not pro-
perly RENTED to this court, that jurisdiction
was gained, then it was still pending in the dis
rict court. The plea being of such character. per-
haps the usual consequences would not follow; but
independently of that, there was under the rules,
a discretion in the court, which it could exercise,
to allow the defendant to plead ancw-which was
done and the case proceeded to trial, the jurors
having been empanecd and sworn in in the same
manner as upon the former trial in the district
court, but before finishing the court adjourned
George Lunt and N. j. Lord for the United States;
]. p. Hale and r. H. Dana. jr., for the defendant.