Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1869-02-09

II. s. SUPREME CoURT-EMILE j. MoULDER
VS.. DOUGLAS L. FORREST This was a pro-
ceeding instituted by the son Of the late Com.
Forrest, of the u. S. navy, to recover the prop
erty of his father, which had been contiscated
during the Commodore lifetime, in 1863. The
action was in the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trict of Columbia and resulted in favor OF The
plaintiff according to the provisions OF the act,
the confscation being one tor the lifetime OF
Forrest. The defendant in the suit, tenant
of the premises, thought it worth while to APP
peal, however, and what was intended to be
writ Of error was sued out. Upon examination
of the writ it proved to be tested in the name
Of the Supreme Court of the District of Co.
lumbia as "Chief Justice of the u. S" the
clerk of the court probably having. by inadver-
lance, inserted the name David *. Cartier, -
where he should have written Salmon Z.
Chase" La consequence of this clerical error.
motion was now made to dismiss the case,
counsel taking the view that the fact only
needed to be called to the attention of the
court to have judicial notice taken OF the fact
| that no writ vt error existed in the case.
In making his motion Mr.. Carlisle, counsel
for the defendant 10 error, submitted substan-
TALLY the following humorous remarks;
The ground upon which this motion rests is
a somewhat peculiar defect in the instrument
entitled a writ of error. IF your honors will
turn to it you will find that it is tested as fol-
lows: Witness the Hon. David K. Cartier.
Chisf Justice of the u. S. E" L presume your
honor addressing the Chief Justice) may take
judicial notice as we'll as personal knowledge OF
the fact that your successor has not yet been
appointed | sincerely trust it will be very
long before he shall De, unless, indeed, your
honor shall name him yourself. The point
upon which the motion depends Is so very MI
mute, and at the same time so ludlcrous, that
| should hardly venture to present it formally
to the court, except that it appears to be con-
elusive, and may relieve my client OF what we
deem to be vexatious and groundless appeal
which is oppressive, since 1t operates as su-
persedeas of his execution. In brief the mat
ter is that there is here no writ OF error at all.
1t might as well be tested in the name OF John
Doe, Richard Roe, or any other fabulous per-
son. Whether this be the result OF a merely
clerical error or of some strange confusion OF
ideas prevailing in the office OF the court be-
low, as to which is the Supreme Court Of the
United States and which Chief Justice is Chief
Justice of the United States [ do not think it
necessary to inquire. In either case the defect
is past all surgery There is nothngto amend;
no power TO convert this paper into writ OF
error.
These remarks produced great merTiment in
court, and caused the grave judges to smile,
and, in some instances, almost audibly. The
ausion to the confusion OF IDEAS IN the office of
the court below as to which is the Supreme
Court of the United States and who is the
Chief Justice of the United States, in view OF
the late action of that Court in the Bradley
case was significant and amusing.
The hope, indirectly expressed, that the Chief
Justice would as President, nominate his own
successor, coming from so Democratic source,
occasioned considerable comment Washington
Chronicle