Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-11-03
LOCAL NEWS.
TIE SURRATT CASE,

The Appeal to the Court in General Term.
This morning, i'll this court, JeG yes Cartier,
| Olin and Wyle on the bench, the Chief Justice
| delivered the opinion of the court in the case
OF Georgetown agt. Davidson, (tke George wn
Hour Inspection case,) published else where.
The Surrstt case was then called, the motion
being to dismiss the appeal OF the District
Attorney from the decision OF Judge Wylie, in
| the Criminal Court, sustaining the plea of the
| statute OF limitations, made by the accused, and
sischarginS the prisoner. Messrs. Merrick and
| Bradley appeared TOR Surratt, and Mr.. Car.
| rington for the United States
MT. Bradley commenced the argument,
claiming that the Supreme Court in General
| Term had not Jurisdiction, and he referred to
| the act OF March Sd, 1853, recognizing the
courts of the District, the Sd section of which
| Prescrlbes lis powers to be the same as the
| Circuit Court. In order 10 ascertain the pre-
else jurisdiction of this Court it was necessary
to ascertain the precise jurisdiction Of the old
| Circuit Court. The 5th section OF the act pre-
| scrIbes that the Judges may hold special terms
and that appeals may be made theretrom. 1t
Is necessary tnat the Criminal Court should
| De special term for an appeal To lay. He
| read from 5th Statutes at Large, page Bus seq
| tions 5th, 9th and 7th, which shows that the
| Court has only jurisdiction when the party ha :
| been convicted IN the Criminal Court, and con-
Iended that the right OF appeal belonged only
| 10 the accused. he contended also that the
right of appeal was statutory, and the United
States had no such right.
l MT. Darlington followed, saying that he re-
gretted that Mr.. Riddle was unabl. ID be IN
Court, and stated that the question was wheth-
| er the United States had the right II appeal
| from the decision OF single justice disc harg-
ing a prisoner from custody who pleaded
10 an Indictment, but was not trIed The United
States lad de INJURED 70 the plea of the defend
an, and II mattered not whether il was special
or general the United States had the rIyht to
! appeal from the decision Of the Court He READ
! statement OF the case, and quoted the star ute
! of limitation act OF l5SD, saying thai the j rs
tlce (N yiie) took notice Ul the statute bnt q Il
not take notice of the exceptions. lie pro rpd :
| ed 10 STATE that the prisoner wa, released not
~IthS' 'andiBg his Motion
Judge Wylie sud, never before was sucl n
motion mane by 81 officer OF the Government
! Courts nave no right 10 order men in custody
unless on aILdaEit, ana no court should be
called on 10 une the power. In the court
below there was no Sidence that the prisoner
was fugitive fTOu justice, and no District At
torney " ho would argue the question.
III. CarTington said he could not rest quietly
under the ImpuIatlon contained IL the worus
Of Juuge NyIir, and he wound not contest the
relative fitness Of Juuge w. OF himself 10 ill
th'ir respective POSITIONS.
Judge HyIie aTked that tke words werp
called iortb by tie pTec'a.n@ remarks Of tI-
IL strict Attorney, watch were insulting.
MI. CarrIn SISn s;.Id ne would not kno wing
ly insult q Iudge npon the bench, TOR they were
ncj Vn equal footing. Ee cOuld defend himself
however, against aLy man
Judge Cartier aid the argum mt must b.Dru-
c. eced "Ith and the PERSONA contrJyrrs. les
should cease.
Mr. CarriuCtCn continued con.snd ~, tn
the 7 Iitcd States had the right Of aruell i'm
such cases rs this. and quoted from Bishop.
vol. Ist- section So. ii without d TIA, IN
court puashes valid indictment, or gives the
defendant judgment on demurrer, under the
erroneous belief that n Is invalid, a LiIlI NAV
be had after the prosecutor has procured the
reVC sal Of JnIS Judgment: bee Iuse, = W. have
areaiy seen, the prisoner not in ieopIrdv
uHIi the IuTy Is lIEpanncllsU and swUrl."
THIS rule, he tnUugar, applied to tais ease
he also read from Wharton sd vol. sect. 3,OjZ,
that WITT Of erIor IN Lugianc may Dp taken
for the Crown upon the overru!ng of de-
murrer 10 an Indictment and argued that The
practice was the same here unless otherwise
provided by statute. Nh. CarrIngton held fur
ther that IL uppeal from demurrer in a crIrn-
Inal case W as allowed the United States oy tue
rules OF the Court. The only ques lion TO be de-
termined was whether the United States was
70 b. considered ~ party as useI In the Rules,
and Whether the Criminal Court was 10 ID con-
sIdered a especial term.' referred To III
the Rules. He proceed al some length TO show
that both were. IeadinSlfrom 5th Ierger y. Biz
and Section OF act OF March ith, l-63.
After recess, MIR. Merrich commenced the
closing argument, stating that when the case
was called IN September last, with leave OF tn.
ceurt the defendant put in sppli,l plea -
which the United States temuTed as they said
specially. The demurrer was argued and the
court IntIrnatsd its opinion aSgiu such cases
the court gives such iuiImalicn before giving
judgment, 80 that the Iarty may Withdraw the
demurrer and plead not guilty thai he may
have jury Trial lie further proceeded
giving 4 history OF the ease. stating that the
following DAY being told by the Judge thar
they filed an anne nded special plea pleading
tie statute OF limitation in bar of the second
indictment, which was found more than two
years alter the dates at which the alleged
offences were committed, and demanded the
discharge OF the prisoner. In answer
10 Mr.. Carrington's remarks AS 10 the decision
Of the Judge, he said that the Judge took cog
nIZance of what he was obliged to notice-the
law of Congress-and looking at the indict.
ment found that they would not agree. and
hence gave judgment. The gentleman should
have made his kipdictment correspond to the
law. 1t should have stated that the party had
been Fugitive from justice, but not SO stating,
IL was defective. The indictment against Mr..
Davis at Richmond contains clause reciting
That ne had been fugitive from JUS
t,s, nee: He statea as rIina., mat he made this
There was broad distinction between wri,
Of error and appeal. No appeal be al.
lowed, except oy express statntei bur writ of
error goes up under the law. An appeal goes
up by the act of the individual, and cannot be
taken to the Supreme Court al common law,
nor writ Of error in Admiralty. II Maryland
it is true that in almost every case the writ OF
eraor has been changed 10 an appeal, because
the latter is much less cumbersome. The writ OF
error is mandatory, coming from the superior
To the inferior tribunal; an appeal goes
from the inferior TO the higher court.
He ventuTed 10 say that no precedent could b.
found Tor appeal from a criminal case In Eng.
lard, and read from lst Wharton, $3.50 and
3G5l, TO show In what cases a writ Of error will
lie. This court does not have appellate juris.
diction OF the court OF last resort in Maryland,
Uut rutucf mas Ofixindl JurlSulctiOn. Inc old
circuit court. from which this court arose, did
not possess the jurisdiction OF a csurt Of ap.
pellate jurisdiction or wri. Of error. The Uni
ted States does not have the same right to an.
peal in criminal cases as il has in civil cases,
II the court likens its jurisdiction to
that OF court Of last resort of
State that jurisdiction must be conferred by
statute II the statute does not give jurisdic.
ton Of appeal in criminal cases the ma tser can
only come up by writ Of error He read from
the Sd section Of the act organizing this Court,
that vested all the powers OF the old Circuit
Court in this court The Judges Of this court
may hold terms Of the Criminal, District and
other Courts, bat they are distinct from each.
The old Circuit Court lost its Jurisdiction oi
criminal cases IN 1888, and this Court, having
the power Of the old Circuit, dees NOT have
jurisdiction in criminal cases, which jnrisdic
tlon was vested In the Criminal Court thai
wear. He read from Brightly, page 24O TO
show the relation Of the Criminal TO the Cir
cult Court, and contended that the power OF
review could be exercised only bv
witt Of eraor. Therefore, thus Court
could ONLY have review OF cases By writ
OF error He also contended that tins
could oIIy b. dane IL cases where there was
conviction in the Io-Ter COURT. AT some lanRfh
he ar guad that tue Criminal Court was not
SPECIAL term that il was an independent Court