The national Republican., 1867-01-04
ThA Cnurta.

10 . .. g. a.a the Courts.
SuPRMp CouRr OF rBE United SrATEs.-.
Ihs Bro,Sn- Wiley Case--b tie Order Of the Dit-
triof Supreme Court IN The ease rsvtsisabk 81 this
Conrt-MarshaH Brotcn os Emily r. Wilsy.-
This case Is familiar to the readers Of the wash.
inRton papers, and Is made before the court on q
motion Of the defendant 70 dismiss the writ Of error
IN the case for want Of jurisdiction. Following Is
brief statement Of the facts and law involved
A petition was fled In the Orphans Court Of the
District Of Columbia by John Wiley and Emily =.
Wiley, his wife, sstting forth that Emily was the
child Of Giotson p. Brown, deceased, and his sole
heir and distributesj that her mother, Elirabeth
Brown, the widow Of aillotson, had duly admins
tered upon his estatei that surplus was len In her
hands from the assets Of the estate, and praying
that such portion fths ~ the petitioner was
entitled to receive might DO paid over to hsr.
petition setting forth that be was the brother Of
fillotson, and alleging that Tillotson was never
married to Elizabeth Brown, aud that even II he
was ever married to her, the petitioner, Emily II.
Wiley, was not bis child.
similar answer was hled By Jesse d. How, since
deceased who claimed In right Of his mother, de-
ceased sister Of deceased. Thereupon the orphsns'
Court, on the 10Th day Of February, 1858, BY con-
sent Of the parties and under the authority Of the
aot Of the General Assembly Of Maryland Of 179s,
(eh. 1o1, Lsf Oh. 49, SEQ. III awarded the follow
Ing issues 70 be sent to the Circuit Court Of the
=
l. whether the petitioner Emily =. Wiley, Is the
child Of Tillotson r. Brown, deoeassd7
2. Whether said Tillotson p. Brown was ever
married to the mother Of Emily =. Wiley
s. Whether, after said marriage, aid Tillotson
P. Brown ever acknowledged the said Emily to DO
These issues were submitted To jury at Q special
term Of the Supreme Court Of The District In Mo-
vsmber, 1865, and q verdict thereon rendered that
the petitioner was the child Of Tiiotson P. Brown
that Brown was married to the mother Of the peti:
TONER; and that after tho marriage hs recognised
the petitioner ss his child
A motion for q new trial was made on exceptions
taken at the trial. which was heard before all the
Judges At . general term OF the Supreme Court.
The motion was oveuuled, and the cause rcmanded
with directions that the samo should be proceeded
In according to law. Thereupon an order was en-
tered BY the court before which the issues had been
tried directing that the finding Of the jury on the
issues sent from the Orphans Court be certified BY
the clerk 10 the Orphans Court
This writ asked that the foregoing order might be
The motion to dismiss tho writ Is based upon the
following propositions;
First. Tho power Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States to reexamine the judgmsnts, orders,
or DEGREES Of inferior courts extends TO such caseI
only as are provided by statuts.-(Bsry W Msr
Second. Under the acts Of Congress suthoriIins
| the Supreme Court Of tho United States 10 re-eI
anime the Judgments, orders, or deorses Of the Su
prsme Court Of the District Of Columbia, such m
order as that entered BY the court In this case Il
not subject to rvview on writ Of error-(Aot o.
1 1901, Feb. II, sec. 81 act Of 1863 March 3, 500
II; Van Nss vs.. Van Ness, 9 How, 62.)
The aot Of 1901 had reference to the Circuit
Court Of the District Of Columbia, and section
provided "that final Judgment, order. or dsoree II
in the Supreme Court" 10.
| Under this Law the exact question now befor,
the court comes up in Van Ness vs.. Van Ness, on Q
motion TO dismiss writ Of error, directed to tn,
Circuit Court Of the District, TO bring gp foE rs
ing Of the jury on issues ssntlfrom the Orphans
Court bs certified to the latter court.
The act Of March 8, 1898, abolishes the Circui
Court Of the District Of Columbia, and established
In its stead the Supreme Court Of the District, a
now existing. By section IL Of this act II Is pro
| yided thus: "Any final judgment, order or deere,
| Of said court may be re-examined and reversed ol
affirmed In the Supreme Court Of the United States
upon writ Of error or appeal In the same cases and
in like manner as Is now provided by law In refer
enee to final judsmsnts orders or deerees Of thu
Circuit Court Of the United States for the District
Of Columbia
This act, moreover, by express terms, limits III,
cases In which an appeal or writ Of error may b
taken In sueh canes as were provided for by th'
| act Of 1901
II Is therefore submitted that the decision Var
Ness w. Van Ness 10 conclusive on the question
now before the court; that the order Of the Su
preme Court Of the District ID not such final ords
or judgment as this court Is authorised to re-eIam
Inc on writ Of error.
Counsel for the plaintiff opposed tho motion, sub
mitting elaborate Arguments In support Of thsi
proposition that the order In this case was such
may bo reviewed by this court.
r. J. Brent and B. T. Msrriok for the motion
J. II. Bradley, sr., and Walter DaVidgo, opposed
Rssldsnees Of the Jndgss Of the Supreme Court o
| the United StateJ.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase, Il street north, corns
| Of Sixth street wost.
Mr.. Justice Wayne, No. 2 Franklin Place,
| street
Mr.. Justice Nelson, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Grier, No. 9 north A street, Capito
Hill
Mr.. Justice Clifford, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice 5wayne, Willard's Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Miller, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Davis, National Hotel
Mr.. Justice Field, Willards Hotel.
John W. Wallace, reporter, National Hotel.
d. W. Middleton, clerk, No. 6os New Jerss
avenue.
David 8. Gooding, U. 8. Marshal, 4sl street.
CRIMINAL CoURr-Judge Fisher presiding