The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-11-02
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
The Contestod election Gases.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-Judges Allison
up in se Conr Of Pleas Sd
Judge Allison delivered opinion dlspOsing of
Judge VsH Allison said:@0n None MondSy morning last
motion was made 70 strike out from the petitions
the Orphans Court, and Register Of Wills, certain
as filed by counsel for the respondents.
O., The motion in the case is 70 strike out specinca
18th and l6th but upon the argument the motion as
We're % Withdrawn Il was ound that the motion was
based upon mistake as to these two specifications,
from the Sd to the 18th, inclusive,
made that ppSn SV s0 %hGn shs @
@ OF the 50 Gsn o % been m
for the purpose of what decision ought to
The Judge then read the specifications and the rea-
sons alleged why they should be stricken out. In DE.
EVES1Ns fEIEeRXPn of February Is 1866 the greater
portion OF his decision Of that date the contested
denying the motion of the respondents; - -,
tered requiring The respondents to file their answer
within ten days. The Court granted the notion and
COURT or QUARTER sEssIoNs-Judge Pelrce
The following case, which the origin Of all the
ties. was this morning adjudicated as follows:z
ton VI vs. captain Andrew 4 NJ % Bro%n. t' s. a. This IS
writ OF habeas corpus brought to relSase William
legged illegal enlistment and detention as Soldier In
dispute is whethe tie prs6ner was e
years ofage at the time of his enlistment The test
October i5 i87 His oath at the time Of enlist
This m we SSeme bS of
Sergeant Revel that he twenty-one years of age
voted for him This was the principal testimony.
There was some additional testimony of his having
s, Gesses VINO testihed that they knew the family In
of the King of Prussia and they remember his birth
day being The 18TH OF October from that fact and that
1917 about the time of his birth, and the other by
The one, however, only. knew that son was born
TO the reator about the time Of burning Of his
the other liked the time by memorandGml no BOOK. ok
SAID S cSd pFoo f but tnS @SG S %hG S he
duce. There was also said 10 be family Bible con-
duced but which, after search made for it, was said
to be lost. Leaf was also exhibited which was said
stated the birth to be October l5 iSi7. but the ~
pearance of the prisoner does not indicate that he
was under twenty years of age the lst OF April
- The effect OF the testimony to speak moderately OF
In doubt. This is not enough. 1t should be shown
athImatlvey that he was not twenty-one years OF
he v as twenty-one at the time of enlistment il
doubt 10 rebut his oath and TO change the status of
Of his entmen but this think SoRsr Is clearly S 's ds
peseS az hat me ~ 10 SI non one who were
the effect OF his being under trial by courtmartal
U: S. District Attorney Valentine for the United
the preceding
The Commonwealth, OK reaUioue Catharlue
Gerke, vs.. Andrew N. Brown, CAPTAIN United states
Army. Peirce, J-This is habeas corpus brought to
release John EiteTt the son OF the relator, from
alleged unlawful enlistment and detention a sol
cier IN the United states Army II was satisfactorily
proved before me that the prisoner enlisted without
the consent Of his mother his only living parent and
that he was about sixteen years OF age. He is mani
testify boy In appearance; and it clear viola
ton OF law TO enlist him as soldier In the Army o.
the United sta Such enlistments bring the acts OF
the enlisng officers disrepute They are in utter
disregard fparental rights aud authority and cannot
De lusthed IN either law or morals,
The detention OF the prisoner was further claimed
on the ground that he was deserer under arrest for
desertion, and that charge of desertlOn had been
preferred against him In the ca e of Commonwealth
VS.. Fox Barr 1885, 1t held that the enlistment of
minOrilntO.the Army OF the United States was void
as forbidden by the law of Congress, and that the
minor left the custody Of the officer or deserted made
no material difference In the case. II he were in
custody of court martial at the time of the service
OF the process IN this the jurisdiction the
court martial had attached In any way, prior TO the
attachment OF the jurisdiction Of this Court, 1t would
Introduce question OF Interest and Importance which
viii require adtudicai2n when It may arise. II does
not arise In this This writ OF habeas corpus
sued out and served before charge OF desertiou
was preferred against him. No court martial was
constituted for his trial, aud his ght TO discharge
cannot be affected by such a contingency.
laT aon 10 "A p1.arr ad