The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-11-05

DISTRICT SUPREME CoURT-GENERAL TERM
and Olin sat In bdnc yesterday.
now ArPEALs FROM TIE CRIMINAL COURT
L/United State. vs.. Leonard Sn Huyck, This
case comes up on exceptions to the ruling OF
the Criminal Court on the trial OF an indict-
nent AGAINST Leonard Huyek for the larceny
membered that Huyck was the president OF the
Merchants National Bank, the failure OF
which excited 80 much public attention and
indictment 10 based upon the alleged feionious
taking OF the bonds from the vaults of the
bank. This Enlistment, to which the defend
grand jury, which was drawn from the names
selected BY the clerks OF the corporation OF
Warrington, acting separately and not Jointly,
ana consequently 1t Is alleged, not according
When the argument on tho case was begun,
Judge Olin suggested doubts as to whether
as the case came here mot on q final ludg.
ruling Of the Criminal Oourt upon the Inter.
locutoty questions whether the grand jury
Mr.. bavidge quoted the 9Th rule Of the
Court curt. as G so1elusi ,,s on that point
criminal cases. He held that the sct Of
| 1868, organizing the Supreme Court, provided
means OF appeal from the Circuit court, and
from the special term to the general term, but
was silent as to appeals from the District
Court or the Criminal Court. The act Of 1888
would have to be resorted to in order to ascer.
tain the method by which appeals from those
courts could be made. 1t appeared by that act
that the old Circuit court was the appellate
court to the Criminal and the District Courts;
and that to this supreme Court was trans
ferred all the Jurisdiction Of the old Circuit
Court Hence appeals from the Criminal
Court must come hither under the act OF 1888,
and not under that Of 1868. Hence the act OF
1888 furnishes the rule governing such appeals,
and that act provided that the Circuit court
should have power to award a writ OF error In
p I'm m al haNA ..NhA al.
Judgment had been pronounced by the Crimi.
Or nisSsnosnof Fhe y sais Of III. court st ai
error would lie, but in all other respects the
| act OF 1888 was the law OF this case. He con
Cured fully 10 the opinion expressed by his
Judge Cartier said that this question, while
u did not involve the merits of the contro-
yersy, did not involve question OF practice of
the highest Importance. 1t was, to some
extent, the same question as that which ooeu.
Piled the sttention Of the Court yesterday-the
cur with his colleagues In the opinions they
had expressed adverse to the right Of appeal on
question now Involving the merits OF the
DO dismiasedi and the appeal was dismissed ac-
Johanna E. Rupert ct al. vs.. Bernard Gieir
real estate In which infants were interested,
md eonss up on appeal from the Judgment OF
Judge YIN, holuing the special term IN equity.
The case 10 this Charles Thoma died, leav-
Ing the said Johanna, his widow, and several
children, all Of whom Afterwards died except
one, (Louisa,) still = minor. Thoma, In his
last will, bequeathed all his property to his
wife, Johanna, during her life or widowhood,
and pppyaded that II she married again, his
executor. the said Gieir, should forthwith sell
Az HIS property, and pay out OF the proceeds
Johanna Afterwards married the said John
Rupert, and afterwards Thomas real estate
was sold under decree In this cause, and q re-
distribution OF the proceeds Of sale; and the
part, l. g., u 5000, allowSiher but one seventh
part, T. e. s2,2sTF of the proceeds; to which |
report Johanna excepted, and her exception |
was oyerruled, and she appealed.
Mr.. Thompson argued that the testimony
showed that Thoma Intended In his will that |
his widow should have one third part OF the |
net proceeds Of the sale OF his property In |
case she should marry again. He quoted q |
very large number OF authorities to show that |
such testimony must be received, and that |
such intention must be carried out.
The court took the papers and held the case
under advisement,
Tho court then noticed the tendency Of the
Fifth ward election cAses, and decided to hear
an argument as to the Jurisdiction OF the
general term over the case as soon as counsel
were ready.
The case of Gresham VS.. Liens was fixed
for this morning, unless the election cases
should be ready, In which case they would
take precedence.
Adjourned,