The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-11-07
THE COURTS.

l
bar was referred to Msssrs. Stanton, Riddle,
osis Tsyloe VS.. King. rhI. case which hs.
term, was ordered to be resrsued.
WILL CASE.
1 Rupert ct al. vs. Qeier ct al. This case
days since, on appeal from tho Equity Court.
II involves the construction Of the will OF
Charles Thomas, which provided that his wife
msined unmarried, but IL sie married only
zone lawful third part" Of its proceeds. She
did marry, and the commissioner to whom the
The Court below sustained the commissioner
and she appealed. Judge Olin pronounced
the opinion ion Of the Court affirming the judg-
THE sURRATT APPKAL DISMISSED.
The Court in Bane Simply Decide tie Question
that The United Sdfes has no appeal In Criminal
sisSo JsS. W II hp5ssiSn q 9SS0g aS Ss
msnt 10 be Prescnfed 10 The Grand yury-The
Statute ~ Ltmiiaiton Doe, Not Appiy-5as
u hfy The Case 10 The Court IN Bdnc.
4 Judge Olin pronounced the following opin-
lon dismissing the appeal made from the
Criminal Court in the case Of John II. Surratt:
| In the case of the United States vs.. John II.
| Surratt, which comes up here on an appeal
from the judgment of the Criminal Court, a
| motion has been made by the counsel for the
hss been argued, and fully considered by the
Court, and the Court have come to a conclu.
sion, which shall proceed to announce:
The accused was Indicted under the second
section OF the act of July, 1862, for engaging in
the rebellion, by oonspiring to abduot or muir.
der the President of the United States. on or
| ment was found on the 18th Of June, 1868. The
| accused was erraigned, and In the first In.
stance pleaded mot guilty. but was subsc-
he interposcd the special plea of a pardon
| growing out OF the Presidents proclamation of
amnesty, as he claimed. To that plea a dc.
i 49,. h. N..l HALL
States. Upon the argument upon that de.
| murrer, the Court IA It's ruling thereupon, II
| seems, went back to the Indictment, when,
discovering what he regarded as a defect there
The defect relied on In the Indictment, II 1t
be a defect, arose under the statute Of limita-
description to be found within two years after
| the commission OF the offence. 1t appears on
the face Of the indictment that 1t was found
after that period. That question arose, and
| the Judge decided the indictment was invalid
| because OF this alleged defect. and accordingly
discharged the prisoner An appeal was taken
| been made and argued before the court to dis
miss that appealj that Is the only motion that
| has been argued before the court, and the sim
| pie question for US to decide Is, whether the
District Attorney can bring a writ OF error on
| an appeal which has been substituted there.
| for 10 this court, when the ruling OF the court
| has been in favor Of the prisoner, and the
prisoner has been discharged in consequence
After somewhat pIotracted argument upon
| this subject, and careful examination by the
court OF the authorities cited, we feel disposed
to rely upon the authority found in Sue Com
stosk page / At that time the sGgr ar was
i son, CHARLES II. Ruggles, and Addison Gardi'
ner; and also by Samuel Jones, known to you
being one Of The ySdEss Of The g,
brethren knew quite intimately; BY W. h.
Wright and Thomas A. Johnson. The case
Richard S. Corning"
and briefly from one or two other cases 10
the case OF Corning he said the proceedings
were the same as those In the case at the bar.I
This practice, think, this court concurs Ia
as the settled law with reference to anes-
| terial for d. to consider whether the judge be-
low erred or ruled correctly on the demurrer,
the question arising I n.on. me SG at
sence Of any statute giving that authority to
| the United states, cannot bring up, by writ OF
or sppea cause where as IudS% snd
| other similar cases, what 10 the practice and
what are the relations between this court In
oanc and the criminal squirt, Wi men .nhe
reu, to announce two or three simple PROPOSE
tions, which, l think, will enable the bar to
az, sens that IA is hespnR ali cases
which should come before us in tdne by way
| of review from either OF the several courts
| which nAmcu IN tne bIhtutct anu WniVh
one Judge is assigned to hold, that no writ Of
error Rss required TO bring the case before the
court IN bdne, but that II might be done by way
Ire 4 writ of error, il did not prohibit 1t, but
Us the right Of csts5lisSiSs ali rule. Of pfsc:
practice whether case should come from the
Circuit Court Here or from the Equity Court,
| by writ of error or by appeal, and the simplest
and most expeditions mode we thought to be
| an ADpeAl,
Now, with reference to the Criminal Court,
| think we concur that no appeal lies on the
| part of the prisoner from the Criminal Court,
except in those cases where writ OF error
would have laid to the old Circuit Court from
the Criminal Court. In place OF writ OF
error we have substituted an appeal, which
brings up the record, brings up the bill OF ex-
| eeptions, brings up everything necessary 10
determine that case, and is much more expe.
| ditious and easier mode OF practice than SANG
| out writ of error.
| There is a further rule OF practice that may
be adyerted to In this connectipni that Is, me
existed by the Judge OF the Criminal Court
certifying to this Court in bdnc question OF
That PTaSSiesfb may 4y ss Of tba sust sni
come to this Court from the Criminal Court
ant, or unless the question was certified up to
this Court by the Judge holding the Criminal
Court. In those two cases the question would
have neither the right to a bill of exceptions
| nor by consequence, to an appeal, because an
appeal only takes the place Of bill OF excep'
| tions. For the reasons have stated the APP
| peal 10 ordered to be dismissed.
Judge Cartier said there Is one considera.
| tion that has not been referred to In this case
which operated upon my mind as finally hXins
my Judgment. After Doncurring with my
brethren In the conclusion that " the right
| OF appeal existed at all on behalf OF the peo-
pie as against a defendant charged with crime,
II must exist by express provision OF law
After determining that question on referring
| to the action OF the law:making power, we
ind that they interviewed On behalf Of the de.
PENDANT, andby Implication enJoined an appeal
against him. The provision of the statute is
that he may have his remedy In error upon
conviction, and inasmuch as the legislative
power only provided for specific case, and
| certain condition of the case to entitle 1t to
go to the higher tribunal II Is conclusive to
Y my mind that this case has no business here,
+ Gresham VS.. Liens, Tho, argument In mig
case was resumed and concluded by Mr. Phil;
fps. The Court took the papers and reserved
its decision.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION CASE. y
1.-THE case Of the contest for the onlces OF
4 Aldermen from the Fifth ward Of this city
and presented hissiews to the court,
Judge Cartier said II seemed to be the unan-
imous opinion of counsel that the statute con-
ferred entire Jurisdiction over these contested
election cases upon the court In general term,
The law (which he Tcad) was very plain on
that subject. But the court In general term
had no jury, and unless II possessed inherent
power to summon a jury, could have none
Thus II jury were required, the execution
of the law would be stopped, unless indeed the
whole case could be settled by the court.
That the law intended the court so to settle
tion of IT, The law must be carried out unless
1t were extra constitutional, lit were extra