Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-11-06
THE CASE DE SURRArr.
The Appeal of the United states Dis-


| tJrdges Cartier, DIN, Wyiie, aud Fisher.) the
Judgment OF the court below In the case of
Ruppert hgt. Gsir was aitiTmed.
judge DIN delivered the ooinioa of the court
IN the case Of Snrratt dismis ipg the spprqI Of
the District Attorney from he Judgment of
judge WylIe in the Crimin.l Oourt, sustain.
ing the plea Of the statute OF limitations. The
This case comes mn here on an appeal from
the Judgment of the Criminal court. A notion
has been made ny the counsel for the appellee
TO dismiss siId appeal. That motioa has been
elaoorateiy argued by counsel, AID fully con-
sidered by the court, who have come to the
nounce.
The accused was indicted, under the ol sec.
ZION Of ne act J uly ITth, 1861. for engaging
In the reoeiIIon ov conspiring To net and
murder the President of the United sstas ON
or about the etn day Of Marcn ls65, and before
aud until the 18th OF ApTli, 1853. The indict-
accused was arraigne1, and in the first in
stance plead "nOt guilty." but WAS subs-.
quentiy allowed 20 Withdraw that pies, when
he interfOsed the special plea of the Pres den,s
proclamation Of amnesty, as he claimed To
that plea dem urrer was entered on the part of
the nlted states. Upon the argumant OF that
DE- murrer the Court, IN its ruling ihereupon, IT
seems, went back 10 the indi ctmeni. when dis
covering wnat he regarded as a defect therein
gave Judgment. Tue defect relief on in the IN :.
uictment, III II be- a defect, arose under the
statute of limitations which required an in.
d.c.meDt To re iound within two wears after
tue commission of the offence. II appears on
after rhat period. That question aro>a. and
tue udge decided that the indic,m was in
valid because Of this alleged defect and ac-
cordingly discharged the pris oner.
An appeal was taken from that ruling 10 this
court. motion has b,cn made and argued
here 10 clsmtss that appeal That Is the only
melton that has reen argued before the court,
ana the simple question Tor US 10 reci lie n
whether n. District Attorney can bring a writ
OF error or an app-al which has been substi-
tui'd therefor IN this court. when the ruling of
tlls cOuTr has been favor q the
such prisoner has been discharged in conse-
quence of such ruling. After somewhat
protracted argument on this subject, and a
careful examination by the court Vt the
authorities cited we feel disposed 10 rely upoa
me authority OF IL Comstock. page ;st. Court of
Appeals, of New York. At that time the Court
was held by Freebnrn e. Jurett, Gresn O.
BRONSON. Charles II. Ruggles, aud Addison
Gardner, and also by Samuel Jon-s-known
10 you as composing and being one OF the
Iudses of the Supreme, then presiding in the
Court of Appeals; by Chas Gray, whom /
mink one OF my brethren knew quite iutimate-
son. The case referred 70 is that of the PaoDIa
sgt Richard l. Corning
Justice Olin then read from the case cited,
and one or two other cases, and remar ked that
In the case OF Corning the proceedings were
ldenticaliy the same As those in the case at bar
THIS practice L thin the court concur IN As
the settled law with reference to a question of
This kind and hence IL becomes imms.erial for
Us To consider whether the judge below erred or
ruled correctly on the demurrer and on the
fucStlOu aIi>lD- Uuucr the Indictment We
think that the people. IN the absence OF any
statute giving that authority to the United
States, cannot bring up BY writ of error or
appeal a cause where final Judgment has been
given. And we have had debated IN this aud
many other lar cases what is the practice,
and what are the relations between this court
In banc and the Criminal Court.
viii here take occasion, hope with the as
sent OF my brethren, to announce two or three
simple propositions, which ] think Will enable
the bar To AVOID being misled in regard 10 this
r. al hsr haa- x,II
cases which should come before us as a court
IA pane by way OF review from either Of the
several courts which are named in the statute,
anG one ludSe l. assigned 10 hold il, that no
WIZ or error was required 10 bring the case
before the court IN b1nc, but that n. yatyht be
dome by way Of APPEAL. II the organic Law did
no. aGthOr,Za writ Of error, IL diu not pro-
Litii II: but rather looked 10 an appeal confer
rihE upon US he r. ut OF establishing ALI rules
OIL rFatuSe. We re.'arded 1t as simply a qu-s-
non q practise, l.'heT 3 case should come
from tEe Circuit Court here or TIE Equity
C'ur. here, h. wit o; error or by appeal. and
ne simplest ard the most expeditions mode,
-" thou -ht, would D. by appeal.
Now with reference to the Criminal C5urt !
tnilE We al concur that no appeal iiss on toe
part Of TIE prisoner from the Criminal Court,
except an those cases whore "A writ OF error
would have lad - the old Circult Court from
tue CRIMINAL Court. II ,isca of WIFI Of error
Ne have substituted tue appeal, which brings
az Tie p cord; brings up the oil OF exception:
D'iLES NJ t'rr!tblhS Eec'ssTrv 10 determine
tn&t asa. anG l. a much L, Do. g.. 7eii.ilusan
t-~lt- lAUCe o. placIce thar .u-4a- out VIII
Of error
There = further rule OF practices that nav
C. Gve-i71 70 10 th;S cOEneation-tht. is The
same practice may exist now that here. 5,1re
existed by he Judge OF the Criminal C)ur,
certifying . tlIs Court IA bInc = question OF
Law. That practfce may s'I,l exist. as W. uu-
d'Tstlnd, under thr Eules Cfthe COurl, and unler
;I@ statutes. No question then would come 10
tbs Court from The Criminal Court ~ ,apt on
tll!s % exceptions BY the defendant. OF unIess
The question was cTttfied up 20 this Court by
the judge holding the Criminal Court. In
tl-=e lWU cases the sttOn womb come here,
III. We all agree that tn pcOnle hlv- ueltler
the ? CHI - 4 bill Of exc p..oG> nor 10 an ap-
peal nv consequence. because al appeGl cniy
taxes the place Of a bill OF exceptions.
Fcr the reasons have stated, TIE appeal IN
this cas- Is ordered 20 be dismissed.
Chief JUsICa Cartier said There j. one
consideration hat has noI been referred - il
my mind. Aiter Concurring with my brethren
III tn conclusion inat If the right II appeal eX-
IsteC a all on behalf OF he people - aEaiu.. 2
Gcfrncant Chargzu with cCims, /. must exist
by express provision OF law. After Ge.ermlu-
lag that question. on referring - h action o.
the law making power, We find that there IL
t-ryeIsd IN behalf OF the Gef-ndan. and by i'm
picatiOn eniOinsd al appyal against them
TIE provision O the st1tute - that he may have
lbs remedy ia eTrSr upon conviction; aud inas-
much As the legislative power only provided
Tor a specific CsSs, aud certain condition 0.
the case, 70 eLtile II 10 90 - re CHER trigu-
nal. II IS conclusive 10 my mind taat tn is cas-,
has no business here.
TIE PoTONAC FRoST.-Brisk Northwest
winds have CONSIDERABLY m faI the Erfha--o