New-York daily tribune., 1857-04-25
La " NIEZLIGElECE.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-Befors judge
NELSON

have already been given in columns, resumed
| and concluded yesterday,Ias. T. Brady esq,
| ming up for the defense, and Chas. OConor, esq,
making the closing argument for the plaintiff.
The points discussed mostly Of technical
chsracter-objection being taken by the counsel for
the defense to the jursdiction Of the Court over a
Consul Of a foreign power.
Mr. Brady contended that as there nothing but
uncerts ain and unhquidated damages claimed on the
other side the first suggestion that presented itself to
his associate counsel that the Court had uris
dctCn Of the cae BY Of the fact that the de-
fendant against whom this process sought was
foreign Consul, residing temporarily here and
about to 60 abroad Much had been said about this
question BY gentlemen who had the control Of that
superior tribunal, which out of door. had
more original and exclusive jurisdiction than
any other of which they had ANY cognizance in this
country; and the Judiciary duly admonished
e, cry morning how they ought TO determine cases;
and counsel informed how they ought to argue
them The question now before them a very grave
one. In the first place. the Constitution provided that
g n all cases affecting ambassadors, Ministers and
Consols and those in which State shall be party,
" the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction"
The first question that presented itself obviously was
whether this original jurisdiction conferred upon the Su-
preme Court within the terms just read was also
clusvely conferred upon that Court that could
be found TO reside either in the State, District
Circuit Courts, and that it not in the power of
Congress to impair or take away that jurisdiction.
grant the night to exercise it to any other tribunal
FORUM Mr.. Brady cited authorities 10 show that the
authority of Congress TO interfere With and adjust the
judicial system OF the United States was q power of
regulation merely, and not power Of creation. The
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was exclusive be-
cause it enana,ed directly from the Constitution.
Mr. OConor, on the other hand, contended that the
words of the Constitution required such construc
ton. We had diplomatic relations with fifty of the
European Governments, and il would be a very low
estimate to count less than hundred Consuls in
ports II would indeed be rather ncOnv venirlt if the
bakers bills of every of these could be col
lected only by the power of the Supreme Court. But
il not The judiciary act passed by some Of
the trainers of the Constitution had conferred that ju
sdction the District Court, and for 20 years had
been unquesoned. mere grant Of jurisdiction was
not grant Of exclusive jurisdiction The idea of the
judicial power, like that Of the executive, was that it
was unit. Among the steps taken for the purposeo of
protecting it this that the Supreme Court should
not be burdened with orgina! jurisdiction except in
certain specified cases, narrowing their number to
cases affecting ambassadors, CousO and citizens Of
different States This clause inserted
for the protection Of the Snprrme Court,
and neither asserted nor implied that other
Courts might not have concurrent jurisdiction if
parties chose to 60 them. There was no reason,
policy or Justice which forbade Congress 10 vest orig
ina Jurisdiction in inferior Courts. Mr.. OConor vent
on to argue that the practice of the United Stats
Courts with regard O States parties such rs o
imply that States and Coli,ult being placed the
same ground in th- section of the Constitution, the
Circuit Court had jurisdiction ConSulS. e cited
very large number Of authorities in support of his
positions His next point was that this suit was
brought against the defendant not as Consul, but be-
cause the plaintiff resident g different State.
The defendant not sued in hE Consular relation.
The Circuit Court N all events had jurisdiction of this
case as case between citizens OF different States.
Mr. Conor then discussed the question OF the writ of
the ne Great, and represented the hardship which
would result to the plaintiff II /. were not granted i'm
nediatey. He had 10 remedy except III Court OF
EQUITY. The property had been removed, and could
not be reached The exercise OF jurisdiction IN this
case would enforce the Obligations of usticc and pre-
vent flsgtous Outrage. The law was severe against
men who rxacted nine ten per cent but here was
case in which fifty sixty e1acted. Decision re-
served.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT-APrl 2i-Besoro
The United States at. Jeremiah Dwe
verdict taken for the plaintiff III this case OF
which W. presented report day. ago subject ts tue opn
ion Of the Cour as to the amount, II any.
Judge NELSON
Alex Cross agt. George lava verdict
dered in this case for the plaintiff for Sl5.g5j 7s
SICKLLS's CUT-OpF.
Wm. B. Sickel. ast Augustus Sturgis ct al
An Injunction prohibiting the of Sickless Cut.
Oa on Mrtopos granted sometime which
oyed only TO the extent of the adjustable stuv Of the
Cut, sttachrnent against Mr. Snrgis, the gnee
then applied for and he eXsnned upon nterros
The final h,uiug ther ton took place this Afternoon
COURT OF GENERAL sESSONS-APRIL o4-Befere toe
RECORDER
At the opening of the Court this morning the trial ~
John Dorsay IA Spanish negro), for the murder of
woman in Worth street, called on, but in
Quence of his counsel lunderstOod 10 be q Mr.. Dxey