Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-03-26
The Case of Mr.. Bradley.

krcay morning passed an order for q rule D.
en- the Supreme Court of the District of Oolum.
bia. returnabie TO the next December ,srm. IN
show canse why a mandamus should not be
issued, as prayed for by Joseph H. Bradley.
Esq-, who, it will be remembered was A IS
barrd by the District Supreme Court on ar
count of a difficulty between him aud Judge
Fisher during me PROGRESS Of the Surratt trial,
IN July last The petition nled IN the Supreme
Court Of the United States by Mr.. Bradley
states:
That he was for many years a member of the
par OF Inc District of Columbia, and also of the
SePreme Court of the United States. That
without lust cause end without lawful authori-
" IN proceeding in which the Court had no
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, by
IT'S order ard judgment passed on the 9th dav
OF Ncvemoer, 1S67, deprived the petitioner Of
his lawful right liberty and franchise 10 prac.
hee in said court 20 which he had heen duly
and lawfully admitted and qualified, and de.
barred the petitioner from his Office as attor-
ney and counsellor Of the said court, and he
can have no relief In the premises save by the
interpretation of the Supreme Court by the writ
ofmandamus. to restore the petitioner to his
sald night, liberty, franchise and office, if it
shall appear that he has been unlustly, Illegal
ly, and without lawful authority removed
therefrom. The petitioner then refers to the
order and rule served upon him, and his ans
wer thereto, and the order and judgment
Of the District Supreme Court and saws
your petitioner further states and offers himseI
ready 10 show and prove, that the statement of
The 10th day Of August, 1867, detailed and con-
tanned in said rule and return, IS, in point OF
fact, false and fabrication in every essential
particular; that the said Justice Fisher 81 the
time ne so read the same in open court well
knew that the most essential fact stated therein
as to the time when the alteration between
himself and your petitioner took place. was
false and he had stated to Chief Justice d. K
Cartier and others. that after the Court had ad :
Jonrned, he had left the courthouse on his way
home, and discovering that he had left his UNI
brels, be went back and got il. and as he was
coming away he met your petitioner, and then
was aceostsd by him; he AYERS and is able fully
10 prove that he did not in fact accost the said
Justice Fisher in rude and insulting manner,
tnat ne did not charge him with having offered
TO your petitioner insults during the whole trial:
that he did not threaten the said iustice with
personal chastisement, that the said justice did
not oHer any explanation or express any feeling
OF respect for your petitioner; but to the con-
uary Of all this, from the first moment when
your petitioner addressed him he was in the
greatest state OF excitement, and was the az.
gressor throughout; and even after he had gone
out OF the court room, and out of sight and
hearing OF your petitioner, he shouted and
PuLiea up ms eoat sleeves, with violent gestic-
ulauons, making the outer hall ring with his
crles, declaring that he had been attac ked by
your petitioner and his son, boastlng that he
was man enough for both of them. and shouting
out let them both come, he well knowing that
your petitioners son had not been near him
and that he, as well as your petitioner was
out of sight and hearing. The petitioner
most respectfully beg leave to insist thai
Mr.. Justice Fisher had no power authority or
Jurlsdlctlon to proceed against your petitioner
IN the premises in the manner aud form SET ont
IN the said answer and return of your peti
toner. That the said statement of facts. &c as
aforesaid, made by said Justice Fisher was
Islse ana iaorieated, to give color to his claim
ofJurlsdlction in the premises, was most in IN
rlous TO your petitioner; and it was not a con-
tempt OF court 10 deny the facts and CHALLENGE
me Jurlsdleton at that time, and in the manner
forth hat II, a.-lS =.
Court OF the District of Columbia had no in
1lsdlcuOn 10 proceed against your petitioner in
me premises in the manner and form hereinbe-
lore complained of for the original matter ont
OF which the charge of contempt arose was
not committed in open court, or SO near thereto
as 70 disturb the administration of justice; and
ne ne contempt Tor which they proceeded TO pun
ism your petitioner consisted in his
resistance 10 an injurious attack made
on MIN by the presiding Judge extra
}} a,iS IA and In manner will calcu-
the par That the rule laid on hin TO show
cause why he should not be punished for a
contempt was vague and uncertain, and was
no notice Of proceeding for forfeitare of his
SAID franchise That his answer and return 10
the said rule Lot having been traySrsed or de-
MED are TO be taken as to the lets therein
stated, are a full and complete expurgatIon
from any contempt: and the Court had NOT
him. ~eS>
Accompanying the petition is the oath of Mr.
Bradley when be was admitted TO the bar. the
order of Judge Fisher dismissing Mr.. Bradley
and the words which passed between Thorn
When tnai order was read, copy of the letter
handed TO Judge Fisher by Mr. Bradley the
order OF the District Supreme Court recurring
MI. Bradley TO show cause why he should NOT
o. punished, the order of the Court directing
tnat ms name be stricken from the roll of al.
torneys, and the answer of Mr. Bradley to the
rule served upon him by the District Supreme
Coort all OF which have heretofore been pub
hshed- Then follows the petitioners brief i'm
which he says: Prior to the passage of the Ju-
dietary Act Of 119S, the writ of mandamus is
sued from the Court Of Kings Bench, IN Eng
ianu, 10 Judges OF inferior courts. commanding
them 70 do justice according to the powers of
ONCE whenever the same was DELAYED and 10
enforce the due exercise of their judicial or
ministerial powers, 10 restrain their sxe,.s,s and
quicken their intelligence. He then refers To a
number Of authorities and says: If then. The
court below acted arbitrarily de spoticaHy from
senHd judicial discretion, or when the case was
Dot Wlhln the scope OF its jurisdiction and
olsereuon, there Is nothing in this case to sun.
port denial OF The night TO the writ.
He contends that there was no lawful founda.
non for the denial by the court below of the
pentoners right 10 practice in that court or to
exclude him from his office. First Because il
appears prImd face there never was any direct
proceeding by due course of law 70 strike his
name from the roll of attorneys of that court.
nor any specific allegation Of moral or nrofas
.lonaI misconduct; nor any notice given TO him
70 appear and defend himself in a proceeding
instituted for the purpose of striking his name
from the roll Of attorneys and forfeiting his
franchise; or that he ever had an opporr1nitv
70 defend himself for his purpose Second. The
only notice gwen 20 him was to show cansa
Why he should not be punished for a conternpt
OF court; and judgment unwarranted by law
In such proceeding was passed Third Re-
cause the Supreme Court In general term ON
such notice disbarred him for con tenn Mt ALLEGED
10 have been shown to a Judge of that conrt
holding a special criminal term The general
term having no authority OF Jurisdiction in the
premises. Fourth. Admitting dro,menfi ,rofi1
That the Supreme Court had Jurisdiction. VET
tnere was full and complete ans wer and pur
CATION OF the matter reclted as a eontenpt Of
court, and the court was guilty of an excess and
abuse of its authority and Jurisdiction in the
Judgment which il passed. Fifth Because in
point of fact, IL clearly appears from there
turn 10 the rule and the Judgment of the CONT
that The only matter found as a conternpt was
Dit denial by the res pondent of a most in in
nous charge made against him by the indga
W hlch the answer alleged TO be, and resnond
sht onereo 70 prove was wholly false ma
helous and fabricated. $500
ne act Of March I'd, 1891, prohibits the sex
trai courts OF the United States from proceed
!ne IN summary manner for alleged con-
NmpIs, unless the same is committed in Omen
court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the a.
minEuation of justice. Well knowing this the
Judge, from passion or prejudice or personsI
hostility, and with intent to bring the I,at;,;on
er within the purview of that act falsely al.
legged u 70 have occurred as he was descand,ng
from the bench, Immediately on the adionrn
meDt Of the court IL was, therefore. a palma
bic, wlliful and malicious abuse of his power