Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-01-30
THE COURTS,

SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT IN GEN.
KRAL TERN, Chef Justice Cartter, Assoeiats Jus
ftces DIN, Wyffe and Fisher.-Yesterday, after
our report closed in the case of joseph Mock
VS.. William Gunton ct al. Mr.. Henkle, for APP
peilants, put in the plea Of statute of limta-
tons. The court reserved its decision.
7o-Ddy.-Justice Wylie delivered the opini IN
OF the Court in the case of Purcell VS.. Miner,
reported on Tuesday last, and held that Mrs.
Miner was party TO the bill the plea was a
proper one, and a subpoena need not issue
again. The bill was dismissed. Mr.. Brent
gave notice of an appeal.
On motion of Mr.. Wilson, a committee wa
appointed To examine L. l.. Stanton as to his
qualifications TO become a member of the b Ar
Wilson, Hine, and Muzzy, committee.
INJUNCTION CASE.
Ii. Maekall, Jr, VS.. Gen. j. T.. McFerrin ct al,
next came up. John w. Oliver for complain
ant Nath. Wilson for defendant. 1t appe RS
that the Government, in 1868, during the war,
selzed and occupied a vacant lot alleged to BE-
long 10 complainant, on lfth street, near New
YORK avenue, and erected temporary buildin gs
Tor The use OF the Pay Department. 1t was
taken against his will, but on promise to pay a
reasonable compensation. On the Both of Now,
1coi, III was given up, and rent stopped. Com
plalnants allege, also, that it was taken and re-
occupied by an officer of the Government, who
was proceeding TO sell at auction, when a tenn
porary injunction was issued against him. On
molten OF MIR. Wilson il was proposed to dis
solve the injunction. There was no argument.
but the question was submitted on the papers IN
the case.
The court said they would have preferred
demurrer on the case, but Chief Justice Cartier
dismissed the in junction, and said that under
the plea of military necessity the property was
taken during long and bloody war, when the
very existence of the nation was in jeopardy,
Tor military purposes on the authority Of the
Executive Department of the Government
This was notorious fact, and this court can
e1- cio take notice of it, and here at the capital
where II made its defense, it had a right to
sort to all means necessary for that defense;
among others they took possession of this lot
and erected these buildings. They had right
to do so, and leave it when they got through,
and let this citizen present his claims 10 the
proper tribunal-the court of claims
Justice Oln concurred in this, and said that
this question was not i'm the province of the
Judiciary department TO interfere. When an
act is determine ed to be in the exclusive control
of one of the co -ordante branches of the govern
ment the others have nothing to do with it. 1t
II was me province ofthe War Department then
the judiciary will not interfere.
Judge Wylie dissenting, said that he would
have preferred to wait longer and herd argu-
ment on this case before making up his mind
on il. But he could not agree with the major
ity of the court. Under this war power-this
plea Of military necessity-a government can
do many things that could not be otherwise
done Does IL authorize an officer Jfs sls'vTov-
eminent to imprison citizens! To take posses
sion OF property against the owners consent
When battle is not imminent the city is not
threatened. II complainant charged more than
thought reasonable common sation. he
ought not 10 have done SO. But Fan the officer
of the Government now go on q mans lot tear
down the buildings, and sell them off at auc-
ton l. there any military necessity; is the
life of the alton in danger now Is there any
law TO authorize this (! The will of the COM
mander OF the army was not the law as long as
the courts of a country We're open, and martial
law had never been declared here.
Judge DIN thought that the military depart
ment Was TO Judge of the necessity, and not the
judicial. Also as to the legal question of land.
lord and tenant, he though. defendant had a
right To remove what was placed there.
Justice Fisher concurred in the opinion of
the majority of the court, that the War Depart
ment was the proper Judge of the necessity, and
not this court. The landlord had not in his
opinion, right to these improvements after
the tenancy ceased, for they were necessary
fixtures placed there by the Government tor the
purpose OF carrying on the trade of war /
think his whole question is merely to degrade
the sovereignty OF the Government
Carroll 81 al. VS.. Baltimore and Ohio Rail
road next come up for argument. Brent and
Phillips for plaintiff, buchanan and Cox for
defendant. This case, which has been men,
TONED ially in our Circuit Court proceeiings
Is an ?ction of tire 5pass, brought by the owners
OF part of lot >, square $50, north of Baltinsre
and Ohio Railroad depot. This property was
takon pc 5, ssion of by the railroad company in
1856, and a tressle work erected and rails used
for c.rs, &c, until lees. This action was
brought by the plaintiff of two counts. LIST, for
re'pdss. and 2nd, for trespass with continu-
endo with form for mense profits, and argu-
ment was proceeded with to the Court on the
right 10 recover menSe profits.