Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1863-05-06
JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA,

cape, the act pronounced Justifable-The In
demnity Bill of the last Congress of the United
States declared Constitutional by the supreme
Court of Pennsylvania.
We have recent information of the decis-
ion by the courts of Pennsylvania of two high
ly important legal questions, which cannot
fail to be of profound interest to all the friends
of the Union in the mighty struggle for the
preservation of the Government. One arose
in the court of Oyer and Terminer of Berks
county and was this: In April, 1852, one Isaac
Morris. of Reading, Pa, was duly enlisted in
the military service OF the United States, in
the Nineteeuth regiment of Infantry. Whilst
the company TO which he belonged sta
toned at Tennailytown, near Washington, in
June, 1862, he deserted and after having been
lodged in the Jail at Reading for some time
he was subsequently handed over to the mill
tary commandant at Harrisburg, where he a,
gain deserted. He was arrested in December
OF the same year, and for the third time de-
serted few days after his arrest. lnforma-
tion was communicated TO Major Kupp, Pro-
vost Marshal at Reading, that Morris "a
gain at large, and that he had threatened that
he would not be arrested by the Provost Mar
sha or his guard. On Christmas day, in 1862.
1t was ascertained that Morris was secreted
about the house of woman of i'll fame in the
city OF Reading. guard of four men, under
the command of police officer William Y. Ly-
on, was detailed for the purpose of arresling
Morris, and orders were given to the guard
to take him at all hazards, without injury If
possible, but to use all necessary force The
guard proceeded to the house where it was al
legged Morris to be found. Two of the
guard, with Lyon, entered the house. and two
others stationed themselves in its rear. Morris
jumped from the second story window, ran IN
to an alley ,and was pursued by John b. Brant,
one of the guard, who called upon him re-
peatedly to halt Lyon, the officer in COM
mand then ordered the guard to shoot him if
he did not surrender. Morris continued to
run; the guard obeyed the order of Lyon and
fired, killing him instantly. For this killing,
Lyon, the commander, and Brant, the guard
who fred the gun, Indicted.
Upon the trial the counsel for the prisoners
(among whom was Hon. J. G. Knox, Judge
Advocate of the Eighth army corps, who had
been specially detailed by the Government to
"SSios az tuO uCiSboC1J tOOh tio RTOuDu tudt
the order of Lyon to fire was Justification to
the soldier, who was bound 10 obey the order,
and that. as it was the plain duty of Lyon to
arrest Morris, and to make all reasonable ex-
ersions to make such arrest without violence,
and there was great danger that Morris would
make his escape, Lyon was justified in order
ing the guard to fire. These positions were
substantially affirmed by the presiding Judge,
Hon. Warren j. Woodward, and the prisoners
We're acquitted by the jury greatly to the graf
ifcation of all the loyal citizens of Reading
and the county of Berks. The case was in
trinsica'ly important, for the reason that it
preaented, for the first time since the com
mencement OF the rebellion, the question
whether deserter. in attempting to escape,
to be treated like a common Law felon.
That he might be so treated was distinctly af
frmed by the learned Judge before whom the
cause was tried, and upon this ground alone
the jury returned the verdict of not guilty.
Hence it follows that deserters who attempt
to resist an arrest do so at the peril of their
lives. When this is fully understood deser-
tiors viii be much less frequent and deserters
much more readily arrested.
The other case to which We allude is the de-
cision of Mr.. Justice Strong, of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, upon an application to
remove out of the Supreme Court OF Penn
sylvania to the Supreme Court OF the Uni
ted States the case of Hodgson against Hon.
William Millward, United States Marshal for
the eastern district of Pennsylvania. In Au
gust, 1861, the District Attorney for the cas-
tern district OF Pennsylvania. George A. Cot
fey. Esq, issued order to Marshal Mill
ward to seize the printing establi shment of the
Jefersonian at Vest Chester, Pennsylvania, in
order thai. proceedings might be instituted in
the Supreme Court of the United States for
its condemnation and coniscation, under the
act of August 6, 1861. The order was execu-
ted, and subsequently information was filed
by the District Attorney in the Supreme
Court, and an attachment issued, ia virtue of
which the said printing establishment was at
tached. VIM. b. Hodgson, proprietor of the
establishment, intervened as claimant His
claim was allowed by the Supreme Court, the
information dismissed, and the property or
dered to be restored to its owner. This was
done. After Its restoration action of tres
pass was brought in the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania by William Ii. Hodgson against
Marshal Millward and the deputies who exc
cuted the order of the District Attorney. This
cause was tried in February last before Chief
Justice Lowry, and under his ruling the jury
returned verdict in favor of the plaintiff for
S525. Motion had been made for new trial
on the part of the defendants, which motion
was overruled. but no judgment had been en-.