The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-03-28

expense, the city as paying for public drive
for the benefit of the whole community, or the
property owners in front of whose places the
pavement is laid. Suit was brought in the Dis
tain citizens, and Judgment was given
of defense. A writ of error
was taken. bringing the question before the
Supreme Court, where it was decided by a
divided bench that the city was responsible,
Judge Read dissenting from the majority. At
the application of the city reargument was
granted before full Court which is the present
proceeding. The argument is confined to the
single point that the Court below. the District
Court, erred In not deciding the act of Assembly
and ordinance of Councils authorizing the
paving of Broad street unconstitutional in dele
eating power to impose upon few a heavy
expenditure that should be borne by the public
at large.
The District Attorneeyship-Th Case Not yet
Court of Common PleGslzJidges, Allison, LtsdlO,C.
and peirce ..|
In the matter of the petition that was fled,
shortly after the decision of the contested cleo
tions by this court for recount in correction
of certain arithmetcal errors alleged to have been
made in Judge Brewsters count which has since
been pending counsel for Furman Sheppard,
Esq, in whose behalf the petition was fled, came
into Court, and asked that the argument of the
questions raised should be heard, in order that
there might be a final determination of the case.
Mr.. Mann, who had hitherto represented Mr..
Gibbons throughout the contest for the District
Attorneyship, was In Court but Mr.. Gibbons
himself addressed the Judges, saying that he
had never received notice from the petitioners
of this matter, and he thought he was entitled
to notice before the argument was preceded
with.
Mr.. Mann stated to the Court that he had
learned of the steps taken on behalf of Mr..
Sheppard by communication with his counsel,
and had constantly apprized Mr. Gibbons of
them as his client, though of course not in
writing. et
Mr.. Gibbons said this was true, but he had
never received written notice from the other
side, and he only wished the Court to make an
order that notice be given him, as he did not
wish to seem to appear voluntarily in this mat
ter, but upon intimation and order of the Court.
The judges said they would have to make
their record up according to the facts. They
had always considered this petition for recount
| as pending before them, and that its disposition
was necessary to final decision of the contest
| for tEe District Attorneyship.
| Mr.. Mann as counsel for Mr.. Gibbons, had
been notified of the petition, had filed an an
| swer to it, and was told that day for argument
| would have to be fixed day was fixed by con-
sent of counsel on both sides. and by such con-
| sent was continued until the present time. If
| Mr.. Gibbons now wanted more time his applica-
| ton would be heard
Mr. Gibbons still insisted that it was due to
him to have the written notice from counsel on
the other side.
| Mr.. Biddle, who represented Mr. Sheppard,
| said he had constantly communicated with Mr..
| Mann as Mr.. Gibbons counsel, and that gentle
man would complain of surprise. 1t had
never been his practice to deal individually with
client when he was represented by counsel.
Mr.. Gibbons said he had no counsel in this
matter.
| Mr.. Biddle replied that he had always been
under the impression that Mr.. Mann was counsel
in the matter. a..
| Mr.. Gibbons said Mr.. Mann was not his coun-
| sci in this case. He had not yet employed
| counsel, and consequently had no one to repre-
| sent him in court. He would prefer not to
| argue his own case but if forced to it by the
court, would have to proceed.
| Mr.. Mann expressed himself astonished at
this for he had likewise fallen into the error of
| supposing that he was Mr.. Gibbons counsel
| until now. III.
The Judges concluded to postpone the case
| until Friday next, when they will hear the whole
| argument.