Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-12-12
THE COURTS.

e.
to-day -Smithson VS.. Stanton. The motion
OF plaintiff requiring defendant to furnish
original Of certain records, and copies OF OF her
hearing Saturday December 2lst
Atkinson and Hewett We. X. T. Merrick
Leave granted TO defendant to amend
THE CORPORATIONS LIABILITY TO DAMAGES
Dennison VS. Corporation Of Washington
writ OF error dismissed ana fers fdcias In
mis- case, Of Chas. s. Dennison against the
corporation OF Washington, before the Court
IN General Term, the Corporation Attorney
applied for writ OF error-to the Supreme
Court OF the United States within the time pre-
scribed by the judiciary act to make the writ
operate as a supersedeas upon the pIainuffs
judgment, and filed the appeal bond Through
some mischance the clerk did net alta h his
seal TO the writ OF error until two DAYS after
me time limited by law, and thereupon
Messrs: Davidge and Fendall moved the
Court fer an execution on the above iude.
ment, and after argument the Court rendered
the following decision.
a motion is made in this case for q writ of
f@TI fncids under q Judgment rendered by the
Court In General Term. This is done in conse-
quence OF failure to have the writ OF error,
which was pray ed for by the counsel for the
time prescribed by law by having q seal placed
Hpon IL. Ii dees not appear that this omission
In he matter OF the seal was owing 10 any
iaches on the part OF the attorney representing
me Corporation Of Washington, one THE par
ties to the suit On the contrary the legal rep
resentatives OF the City exercised early pre-.
against any tuches Oy ASKING lmmp-
diately upon the rendition OF Judgment. for a
writ OF error, which he was under no oblisa.
tor 70 do. This being done the CLERK pro-
ceeded at once upon his own motion without
awaiting personal request on the part OF the
legal representative OF the City TO complete
the proceeding in error, taking notice of the
fact that II was the desire Of the party IN ask
ing for the writ in open Court 70 supersede
Judgment. In the multiplicity of his business
tn Clerk failed 10 perfect the writ by placing a
seal upon IL within the ten days prescribed by
law
The motion now made involve the Court i'm
the necessity OF determ lining either that a writ
OF error 10 complete, without seal being an.
nexed within the ten days provided by the
law for supersedlng the execution OF the indy
ment or the assertion of power ia the Court
TO silk a seal within the limitati tons OF the
statute, thereby curing the omission. The
Court cannot. III der the first proposition. de.
termine that this seal was afIixed and this writ
perfected within the ten DAYS, for that would
be repeating time, which IL is nor likely the
Time is beyond control. and said to travel
in defiance Of the membranes OF men and
courts, even these of an ecclesiastical charac-
ter. 1t is said that Joshua n adj some fiuence
in stopping the progress of time, but that was
under the Old Dispensation. II occurs 10 me
that ii is simply impossible to assert that un.
der the law the Court has the power by amend.
ment to give TO this seal retroactive effect, so
as to vitaIze this proceeding, by bringing the
time when the writ was actually sealed with.
in he ten days prescribed by the law.
y.
| er. In The first place, l would remark that il
| Is not in the power OF the Court 10 affix the
seal at all. This power the law vests in the
| clerk. am free to say In this connection that
! If l conceived 1 had the power in the matter
l would feel disposed TO exercise il in this
| case, for there has really been a faul. here on
| the part Of either the counsel for the city or
! the clerk. 1t is one OF those cases incident 10
! the practice Of the law that will occur and re.
| cur IN the multiplicity Of business Counsel
for the plaintiff have seen At to take ad vantage
| Of this omission on the part OF the clerk. and
having done so, the Court 10, IN my judgment,
| deprived of discretionary power to give relief
| / am very glad 10 know, however, that the
| remedy is not lost to the other party; but that
| he can again resort TO this process OF writ of
| error, but not 90 as to work q supersedeas
| The writ Of ferf fdcias will issue.
To.doy.--Case OF Carroll et ol VS. Hanna-nIr.
Brent, for plaintiff, offered prayers TO the effect
that II the defendant did not occupy and pos.
I sess the property exclusively and uniAter-
ruptedly. and il the whole was not Enclosed
and kept inclosed during twenty years con.
tinuously, prior to this suit, then the Court is
| prayed TO instruct the Jury to decide for the
| plaintiff. Mr.. Cox, for the defendant, pre.
| sented prayers To the eject that II this land
for twenty years prior to this suit, and il said
| enclosures were broken down or DESTROYED,
| bat nom time to tine ana within reasonable
| time repaired them, he prays the Court to
instruct the jury to decide nor the defendant
Mr.. Brent commenced his argument ON the
! Inv Of the case. He held that it was the uni-
| form rule Of practice In Maryland, and this
| property is governed By the lawn OF said State:
that In the title Of possession, he who seeks
the court, and the burden upon hin 10 nro ~
| title and TO kRsp up enclosproU. I He ouotod
| many reports IN regard to the Law OF the case.
| both Enklish and American authorities: and 4
care In esh Ssrgsa>s and Rawles, whore ths