The national Republican., 1869-06-30
THE COURTg,

CIRCUIT CouRr-Judes Wyiis,-This Cot
was occupied as follow. Yesterday
Fisher, tried yestefdsI for libel, in the oId
disbarfing the pl.intih, were formally scttl!
Q verdict being given for the defendant una
moved mo iof q new trial, and this motion v
set 70 be heard in the first instance BY
sv The @ second case OF bradley vs. Fisher
dsmases ensuing to the pisintir BY IN,
lawful and oppressive use Of the defendani
powers as Judge, then came up. Thi. 90
ground Of he former suit, the same jury bell
fmpanneied as In the other case.
Judge Hughes opened the ease for the plsi
s Ssni sagn oper ansS 'ns n
not oniy without the Jurisdiction OF the cot
but WAS made from personal m alice and motiy
s,, shss sSs When 70 h sg.SetIS saee ~. ssso
was speaking not for himself butfor the plai
| tin, and from the record.
N Scc 'ss,ss az oIn, ., o. a. @ s,a ,G h' S0
DTAny TSe IaSs sVldeneO was offered a, on ye.tl
M wys SHSk 81 eSssa no y m o,ssr o Il.
showed that II was made In the Surratt oa
and must be so stated. The Judge may hs
been wrong In his view Of ne law, but 81
fence com mitted against the Court while tn,
case was on trial The Court thought III
the terms Of the Court extended after the B
ginning OF the June term BY an act Of Ce
gress had not expired when this order VI
made. Judge Fisher was then acting :"
AZ 10 the jurisdiction Judge wyiie ssi
This Court comedies that Judge who undo
takes to make an order or enter q judgment
regard to a subjeet,matter, or a party oy
which he has no Jurisdiction does thAt whit
is utterly void. This action 10 not tho acils
Of the court, and he may be responsible o
that Individual act az other men are tespo
n. % suSjeet.mstier Of The orler ia within II
Jurisdiction of the jude and the party With
his Jurisdiction, thea the judge Ia not Iespo
men. s,S u ths, he may Ssys eomSitsed, howsv,
eron the error msy be.
Errors OF Judgment on The part Of q COZ
may be corrected. Mr.. Bradley stated yestb
day, IN the course Of the trlsl on the 9th
case, that he had no remedy ny appeal to y
general termi that the order was conelusis
an 20 order which showed upon its face, as 8.
BIS counsel contend, that there was an efs,
OF the court In assuming TO punish Mt. Brs
iss.if showed there was no contsmpfi that Ii
. act OF 1881 provides that the contempt can on
be committed while the court Is sitting. Al
sonri @ p,p was not sit,iSS at The time The offen
was committed, Ifihat be \ proper stateme
, OF this order, and think II Ia, then, plNinl
! Mr., Bradley had = complete remedy by goi
. to the court in general term, because he cou
|. have taken there this very order, and she
upon its face that Judge Fisher had exceed
his authority In di.missing him from the b
4 as that, and he could have obtained = rerer,
: OF that order. So he was not without rene
there. He quoted Seconds case no Howar
In support Of this view.
He held that the courts Of the District
! Columbia did not come within the ter
"United States courts,n In the act Of 1891. 7
q Supreme Court had decided in the case
Kendall that the courts OF this District w
!, not courts OF the United States In the ser
g OF the terms, as viewed In the Oonstltutie
4 They are not Constitution courts. The
= preme Court had decided 10 Csnter vs.. The
surance Company, 18th Peters, that Tsrritor
courts, though created by Congress, were
], United States courts. II had also decided u
u tho District Of Columbia was not state.
q eoarts, created By The Unitsd ststss, but q
. therefore, United States courts.
He thought the order alleged as llbelous
y an order made by Judge whilst holding cot
= within its Jurisdiction, for the court had Jul
n diction over the subject Of contempt or n
a behavior, and also OF what attorneys Nh
y practice In the court.
II conduct. For II this court t,rminated y
f. week, Judge Fisher might yet bring a 8
10 against him for his (Judfe W's) Judgment, I
n recover from him whsteyer dam,ges he /
le Judge Fisher. II = judge could be held liza
70 for Judicial acts, the Judges OF the Supra
10 Court would be subject to action, for "
;sGsla ;sssn the ,Sa P.saS 9ho soaid
~ be sued. He, therefore, sustained the OBJ
10 tion to the evidence offered by the plsintih
:: Dee At dsm,;s Of LSSkeS ,,, VI Roe, dt Brsde
10 was admitted as = party to the suit, whiol
~ an action Of ejectment.
ASSIGNMENT ron TO-DAY.
O. Nos 81, $40, ~, ais lS7, l59, lel, ITO, iT3,
" lot, 1875, 1871, 200, 2ol,
i. Adjourned,