The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-11-08
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

The Case Of the Lnfc General Walker-IIts
Arrest and Dail-Thc Jurisdiction Of the
Supreme Court OF the United States-Im.
portant Decision.
VIM Walker and s. r. Slater PfainfNs in ev-or. ~.
The United States-This Is tho case OF the Inflated
General William Walker, OF South American nbustering
notoriety Walker was arrested in New Orleans in 1857
on charge Of having sot foot military expedition
against tho territories OF Nicaragua and Costa Rca In
violation Of the neutrality laws. He brought into
court and entered into recognizance in the Of
$4,000 for his appearance the day set for trial,
Slater becoming his bail On the day Of trial Walker
failed appear in perso and bis counsel claimed the
right represent him In to bis recognizance.
The refused to accept such appearance ropon-
sve the bond, an judgment thereon, with In
forest a. six per cent until paid. uhis appeal
appear the first day Of the term TO in
formation, which was then dismissed, and insisting
that this sufficient withstandnya second infor-
nation preferred the last day OF the term. They
also that the appearance by counsel In the second
instance was sufficient ON motion to dismiss The ap-
peal the cause coming from the Circuit Court for the
Eastern district OF Louisiana, Mr. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the following opinion A motion has been
made 10 dismiss the writ OF In this cause upon
ground that the dispute Is not sufficient 10 give
Jurisdiction this court appeal BY the terms OF the
twenty second section Of the Judiciary act the nrsdc-
ton OF this court TO reexamine the judgments Of
Circuit Court limited to where the matter IN
dispute exceeds the sum value OF two housand dol
lars Il a good deal oontrovered whether the
sum or value in controversy Is TO be determined by
reference the amount claimed or the amount of the
Judgment, the amount in dispute IN this court ID
has long settled. however that when judgment
IL for the defendant for the plaintiff and for less
than two thousand dollars and the plaintiff out the
writ Of error this court has jurisdiction II the damages
claimed the declaration exceed that but that II The
Judgment plaintiff and than thousand
dollars and the defendant prosecutes in error this court
has no jurisdiction for the amount in controversy
the defendant, Is fixed by the judgment Cooke VS.
Company, Ill Cranch 27G Gordon Ogden, Peters,
33 Smith Honey, H. 46el In determining the iurs-
dIconal amount u 10 obvious that neither in
erest on the Judgment costs OF suit
the computation, costs form part OF tho
dispute and interest the Judgment can only
after rendition while the jursdctiona amount IL deter
mined by the Judgment Is fixed ut rendition; and this
was settled in Knapp Banks, Howard 49, In that
case some EXPIRE In the opinion in the order
seemed 70 support the idea that If the OF the
matter In controversy precisely 81 900 writ OF
will lie But the attention OF the court not directed
to such a case and not aware that such
until now was before the But there Moth
ug doubtful Ia the rules applicable 10 H. This court
has no appellate Jurisdiction except such as il defined
by Congress- The act Of Congress limits this jur sdcton
10 cases where the matter in dispute exceeds 81 000
We can no take jurisdiction where the matter does
not exceed than where IL Is less than that
The amount controversy in the before u.s.
taped In conformity with tho settled principles OF the
court does not exceed g., 000 We have, therefore,
Jurisdiction Of tho writ OF error, and II must DO dis
missed.