The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-07

law ii The court
The Judre--You had better understand the prsotsee
about this law 1t has enforced here very ofsen
The District Attorney may waive IL II he please know
very well that the lae Mr.. Fenda Nssrct Attorney,
used to ask the question Sometimes Mr. Key did and
sometimes be did not
Mr.. slaItn-Tbat is precisely the point Of view IA
which propose 10 dacuss H. these objections alluded 70
sporadic, exceptional the question arises
whether the rule sought TO be applied by he Dssct Az
,ospey for The first time the Las Of the aud or whs-
ther merely acqaiesced in having any real
foundation the statutes u tne land urged here
he practice of The court axe that practice law,
i must be Uniform Then, as 20 the express s,atate-
how ttoros IN The o. l777 was merely directory
statute Il directed the sheriff to Summon men having
freehold property but provided tnat that should be
OF challenge He stood not lbe ground that
the of the state OF Maryland hld changed, and did
require the property Qualification, eas on the
ground that tnat law never did apply this District he
wss satisGe that II was Contemplated by act Of
Congress make the laws 10 the property qualification
o. Jurors applicable the District because then they would
Pen al act Of Maryland operating 10 one coun-
" and the Virginia operating in another county.
what was the common Law 10 this District Il the
la~ OF England porated INTO and mada
part If the Ian OF the Dsrcs 10 that common aw there
WIS no such property qualification 10 be found.
The JSoge sad-Josepb Wright having been called
having spswer,d several preliminary questions the
District Attorney asked him II ne worth $500. He
had right put that question 1t ocje tied 70 BY
the deiencsnvs counsel and argued rhs county OF
Washington part OF tho STATE os Maryland The laws
OF May land extended TO the District by the act OF
FEBRUARY o. 1901 and much part OF the laws Of
The District where changed BY act Of Congress- as
Congress bad enacted ibe laws in 80 many Words
this particular provision OF The ACT oi M.ryao l777
has been uniformly practlsed ami eoforsed, know
that has praosed and enforced in many instances
sipce have been the bench The reason Why uni
fofmity did bot prevail sas, suppose, that the District
Attorney not choose avail himself Of the advantage.
link heard The late District Attorney cay 80, remark
ing that did not possess mind according 70 the
weight of his pocket Whether a law or not Is
question before the Court At oil. Fhe question Ia
whether the Law exists. With the sws OF Maryland. as
enforced 1901, have nothing 70 do, more
Than have with the iaws OF California since
ls4s. With Of the lass OF Maryland as
changed by Congress since 1901 re have every
thing do. The people OF Alexandra had certain rules
Of action founded the laws of Virginia. and the people
Of this county governed ~ the lass OF Maryland
az they existed In 1901 that very curious stale Of
thin s did actually exit have myself tried men In
Alexandria under the lass Of Virginia. and punished them,
too, when convicted; and every ooe Who has
o. sciced at this that the laws Of Maryland
enforced, far changed, with great unlfofmi-
ty The tribunals OF this District have lAoorod under
great mistake for bfy light years if the position taken by
tae for the defence All the courts and
the JUDGES who have held court in this District hava
perfect unanny enforced these laws. 1t could not
be for Congress said they should be the Law Of
The Congress- bad the right 70 change them, bc
possesses legislative power within the District
The law requiring freehold qualification in the State Of
Maryland amended By subsequent law Of Maryland
make the ownership Of freehold Of
challenge but yet left the personally OF $500 pre-
requisite for mans being juror. either tho
District Attorney the counsel for the defence chooae 70
make 1t a cause Of challenge they can do
Mr.. stanton-rhe witness, oeheve, has - ssred.
District Attoney-rns question whether yea we're
| worth eight hundred dollars property.
Juror-I expect am.
Mr.. CarlsIe-wbat was your previous answer
Jw0r-rhat was not certain
Mir. Cariisle-YoI certain
Juror-I certain that | worth anytb - but
| believe am worth double that amount.
Mr. Cariisle-ln property In tins DISTRICT
JuTor-No, sir, not in this District
The District Attorney read the law which requires the
juror 70 have the property in tn state aad argued that
that phrase applied also 10 this District
Mr.. Sssoton-rhe personal properly qualification
not by the law Of Maryland lin ted county 70
the State. Nov, Gao the Court limit couosyp
| Mr. Carlse-H the words ''io St.ts"
.
single ssstament.y disposition Of pro.
| perty, or To property in slaves.
Mr.. Stanton hoped the gentleman would not lug in tho
question Of slavery in this matter. (Laugnter) He
argued that the statutes Of property goes the
10 the Juror-what sort of property do you SPEAK OFF
Juror-Persooal property.
Mr.. Internationally Coca with the possessor. II
the juror had $4,000 deposited 10 bank OF New York;
he has according the viss Of lay, pocket
personality
Mr. Carlsle-I should like the witness 70 state whA. hie
properly consists Of.
Juror-In notes and debts due me- have notes 10 tho
District
Mr.. Carlisle-Then your drst based on
doubts of the solvepcy Of your debts?
Mr.. Stanton submitted tina, the question wrong
Mr.. Carlisle did pupi Of gentleman.
The Judge thought that the question right
Juror in reply 10 Mr. Cariss's qaessoa-rnAs is what
/ meant.
Mr. Carse-Over and above all your debts aud resppu-
sbes, you consider yourself worth eight hundred dol
lNsS
Juror-I do.
The Judge would not hold that the personal property
should be the District He objection juror
M Stanton-Swear him.
The Judge suggested be had better not swear him
till TO morrow, Us he the jury could not
separate. 1t within half hour OF hour Of
adjournment
Mr.. Stanton-There why thought the
jury should go a. under the OF the hw
He asked that the juror b sworn.
juror stated that he should glad to be allowed togo
home evening He had expected remain today.
The Judge said that had Often been pursued
Mr.. stanton-Is has been done by consent.
rhe Judge did not think required consent.
Mr. supposed If the juror wanted 10 60 homo
he could 10 under the u officer.
The Judge would not allow the jury TO separate.
Mr. S,antop-Then We will INSIST. We will consult
the con &c nieuce of the iurv.