The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-11-11
THE COURTS.

-
DECISION ON CRIMINAL PRACTICE.
United States va. Hess. This Is an In |
dlctment In the Criminal Court charging !
the defendant Helss with an assault with In
tent to kill Mary Samuels. II was contended
by r. Schmidt for Heiss on the trial below,
that the Indictment charged an assault with !.
intent to kill" and that the proof, II any,
must be OF an assault and battery with in
tent TO kill. A menace was an assault, but
II the assailant proceeded further to bodily
violence, IL was not an assault merely, but an
assault and battery. So that the change Of
the indictment and the proof could not and
did not correspond. r-.-,-... tf..I
Mr.. LoveJoy, for tho United States, con-
tended that the Indictment was sufficient,
because 1t described the offence In terms that
brought 1t within. the statute, and informed
| the defendant OF the cause and nature Of the
accusation against him.
The Court affirmed the decision Of Judge
Fisher, sustaining the Indictment, and over
ruling tho motion to quash. In the course
| OF his announcement Of tho opinion Of tho
ocurt, Chief Justice Cartier said: E..s 4,
THE court does not fully sympathize with
| the doctrine Of pure technicslities amounting
| to hypercriticism. 1t has obtained In the
| try, and In the other country until II has boen
the occasion Of tho supervention OF the semi.
6areasous Proees. Of snmmarIly administercd
punish ment; for the very reason that civil
lred people could not DO secure, except by In.
| tsrposing the hand OF power without refer
lection for such refine ments in law as operate
! without reason) 70 the ob,truction Of the
genet,ai eou ,h 81 Jnstice, IL eppeas 70 the
- '''''',o nv W.
oni.eu otatcs VS. John Leg; nus 10 hn
aPPeal rom Judge fsher, holuing tue Orim-
Lee was indicted below for ~ assault with
intent to kill. Vashon contended that the
word "feloniously," In tho description of the
u on, , scs lonn IN 'ne iha,o.ons, nma'e Is
.ue lnulctnen'i tnat wv MISCONCEPTIONS III
sao ,nu'esnent Wei sush US W feuuer eoh'
''G' na, unaes y ,nPT1pss. s,. .,.,
LosveJoy, or sho onNsa STATES. son.cuuoa
qua. Tue ononco cnsIgoa N In,sac,neauos
uuIet stasoto, anu tnot VIC Noru Ioioni
ouy s"sus,ko enu may w xasscu
over M1aour auscnn8 ing saiiumy Oh tae m
siuuieh.. ING in'orhnea''ons aid moi ''"ate'
tue inuietmcn!
lne SouI. sus.aiued tne Judgment Oh VIZ
Soutt oeloW, overrunhe tno uouon 10 quasn
.ne indictments 1uugo oar'er announced
tue opinion Oh tne court.
| =, WIT w TIE bEsoh.
appeared tnat an indictment was IN
oiacs INK ana me lnterhnealon OF tnnt
woro was oiue lnk, anu 10 expressing sue
views OF tno court, 1uoge Sartter sa,u
or, ~ suis Pctlou oI the avoiition VI
al dis'mction On account Oh co,or, IL appears
70 me Una. ms c,luclsm nypercrnica'i
out II Is saia tnat wnere an apparent nitera-
ration IN INC ,naic.men. eaisIsi y 70 DC
pIesu'i S 'has ~ .he uos mauo " 'ne s,auu
Jury. we 40 not 80 understand the law.
We unuersana tha' Wheh an inulctuieht Is
orougnt into coult " sne foreman Oh Tue
III, Jsy ,, Te or.a,o W u ,Su, U,aS or
PUCK INK, Wtnous question or cnaitense OF
demurrer, or proof oilmpeaehment, u should
" 'aHen US ,he .e ,L onsp'ns VI nsnl
gpanu jury mat ine Presunpsaon rs taat us
contents were indicted oy the grand Jury ana
reponea oy tne grand Jury iawiuiiy, ana
that II you would go BACK OF the nndlng oil
the grand Jury, you must enter the jury
room, independently OF the Indictment, ana
make proof that was not their hndlng.
10 come 70 any other conclusion would 20
70 presume tna' someoody naa commit.ed
Iofgery OF the action OF the Srano jury,
when Is not 10 DC presumed. On the whole
tne eourt sees every reason-unaer tne guia;
s ane' o. a'sPos.sloh 70 sec .ne Penaiucs Oh
J despite the hair-spittings and imaginary OBJ.
| str,ictions-whv tbls Indictment should he
sustained.
Il THE LEE CASE.
John F. Lee ct al. VS.. John II. johnson
and j. II. johnson vs.. Lee ct al. These
cases came mn on appeal from the decision
OF inc lower court gu tne construction OF tue
| Will oil the late Alfred Lee.
Lee left to his executors. JOhnBOu, Zee nd
others, mower To seIl bis estate for tbe nav
ment Of his debts, legaeies, &c. One of the
arises whether the power conferred IS per-,
sonal trust to the individuals designated as
| his execntors or n nover conferred mon ey.
ecutors as pody and resulting TO the sur
vlyors.
MIR. ]. Brent commercial the argument,
and the case was then postponed until this
| rnnr,,nn
u'''h'"s u su,rs
Joshph II. Bradley VS.. George 7. Fisher
These are the well-known actions of ], II
Bradley for 500. 900 damapes aualnst Judge
fsher nol uauiaBes roSutlnB iroih 'he'uuse
order disDarring ny. Bradley.
[Judgc Fisher did not sit Is this appeal.
| Mr., Bradley commenced his argument
, | discnssjng hnib c.saa in ono Uis noint,
oosn eaeee ~ INV ih'' P''i'
: were substantially as folows'
i, The main bill or except ons sets out that III
I defendant was Judge, holding the Crimins,
| Court OF this District for the March term
1861, and continued to hold the same to the
, 10th August, 1867; that tho reason for y Goa
y tinuing the court was that when the jun
s term commenced the case OF John II. Surrn'
8 was on trial, aud was not terminated until ii,
4 10th day of August 1867; that the June terra
n was regularly opened, aud continued by Chic
Justice Cnrtferi that the Jury was discharge
| In Surratt'a case on the 10th August, I; nn
read in open court the paper writing com
n | plalneu of, ana ordered ~ to De- recorded, Rnt
= | the same was done; aad then to show that tn,
| said record was prepared, and writton, ant
% | published by tho defendant with express
Il malice against the plant 1T, and to def INC ant
"A injure him, and without the defendant hay
Ing any Jurisdiction to ma Ike said order, fur
ther offered to prove by witnesses, then Il
~ court, that 10 point OF fact there was no altei
W cation between plaintin aud defendant, aud n
o words passed between them; nor were the
3, | near each other when the Criminal Cour
n took Its recess until the next day, or immt
| diately thereafter, and as tho presiding judg
was descending from the bench But til
court refused to admit the evidence
in First. The defence 10, that at the time OF tn
y, alleged commission Of said supposed trespas
the defendant, Ms one OF the justice
o Of this court, was regularly holding court
& The proof is, hc had been holdlng the Mare
term OF me SAID court, and continued TO hoi
nos. of cnmnisins The tri,i NJ q cause bsgn
}, before that term eommenoedI and the osus
}. had been Terminated aud the jury discharged
J, and ne prisoner rensnded to prison; and q
t. TERN nau enueu oe,oae ,he aeiGhunhu mnls t
The defendant therein had no notice, and III
J. proceeding was e9rdm non indice.
seGohdi h go aei Snii PEA se's W ,hAt
9 trict ri tYoIumhia which Ia a court Of III