The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1859-05-24
STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY.

! Inc attendance was unusually large.
! The Medical Board authorized by act of the last
Legislature was organized by electing Drs J. ii.
Dickson of Wilmington, J. G. Tul of Newbern,
Caleb Wiuslow of Pasquotank c. E. johnson and
W. II. Mckee Of Raleigh, 0. F. Manson of Gran
vile, and Christopher Happoldt of Morganton,
Candidates for the practice of Medicine will now
have to go before this Board and be examined as
to qualification in the same way that lawyers are
required to be examined by the Supreme Court
Judges.
The following gentlemen were elected officers of
the Society for the ensuing year : DIR. n j. Pitt
man of Edgecombe, President; Drs. Henry Leach,
Whitehead and Winborne, Vice Presidents; DIR.
w. G. Thomas of Wilm., Secretary; DIR. c. W.
Graham, Treas. and DIR. w. T. Howard, orator
Dr. Alexander, of Cabarrus, offered prize of
fifty dollars for the best essay on the effects of to-
bacco on the system; and DIR. Manson, ofGranville
offered gold medal on the best written essay on
any medical subject.
The next meeting of the Society is to be held
in Washington n. c., Oh 18th April, 1860
Our JUDGEs.-Wc sorry to see that some
of our North Carolina Judges have given cause for
complaints of their official course. We mentioned
a few weeks ago that during murder trial at
Elizabeth City, Judge Saunders had witness in
troduced after the Solicitor had closed the case
The conduct Of the Judge has been everywhere
condemned The matter is about this way: Mr.
Hines, the States solicitor, examined two witnesses
and then stated that he was prepared to submit the
case to the Jury. Judge Saunders asked him if
he was not going to introduce DIR. Shannonhouse.
The Solicitor replied, No, he satisfied; where
upon the Judge said he would examine him, and
did So The following communication of Mr. Hines,
the solicitor, addressed to the paper which first
complained of the conduct shows that the Judges
conduct was improper:
MAY 3, 1S59.-My attention has been called
to the report of the of the State VS.. Upshur,
in which you PROFOUND the following query:
I" Has Judge sitting upon the bench the right
to compel the introduction Of witnesses either upon
one side the other, against the wishes of coun-
sci? We know that the Judge decides upon the
d,2ni&&iJIHy Of evidence, but we were not aware
before that he had right at his own election and
i'll defiance Of counsel to call witness upon the
stand, have him sworn and examined"
As was one Of the persons engaged in the trial,
it will not be amss for me to endeavor to answer
it. | then thought and still think, it was gross
usurpation of power in the Judge to pursue the
course he did. The following authorities will show
whether | am right in this opinion:
Chief Justice Ruffin, in delivering the opinion
of the Supreme Court in the State Martin, g
Iredells Reports page 100, decided in 1871 J uses
this language 4" 1t is in the discretion of the pro-
scouting officer, of any private sutton, what wit
nesses he will call. He examines such as he deems
requisite to the execution Of the public Justice.
If others can shed more light upon the controver-
sy, or show it i'll new point Of view, it is compe
tent to the prisoner to call them. Without con-
sidcring therefore the peculiar reasons which
the particular persons dispensed with on this
trial, and Notwithstanding a modern case in Eng
land, we think the ruling Of his Honor right, on
the broad ground that it was the province of the
Solicitor and not of the Court to determine who
should be the States witnesses"
The same Court have twice affirmed this deci-
sion. First, in State VS.. Stewart 9 Iredclps Rep.
34S where Pearson, the present Chief Justice, de-
livercd the opinion of the Court and again, in
State VS.. Perry, Bushels Reports $780, where Nash,
Chief Justice, delivered the opinion. These eases
seem to fix the law as plainly as the highest Judi
cial Tribunal in the State can do E. e. HINES.
Besides the above complaint against Judge
Saunders, some writer in the eastern part Of the
State complains that Judge Dick, while on the
bench, at Halifax we believe, pulled off his shoes
and put his legs over the railing in 'front.' bringing
his feet and yarn socks in too close proximity to
the olfactory organs Of some people. A rather I'M
dignitied attitude for Judge while presiding, it is
true, but if he is troubled with corns we can't
l.