The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-04-05

that no cases can be found where the defendants
ae restrained from going on, where is the principle
1t not supposed that the court below is going to
do WI ong In again opening the case. We are sure
that you will not presume that we wish them to
find new judgment altogether on new grounds.
What we ask is that the court after careful and
II orough review OF the arithmetic In the case, snail
Give such decision as they may then think TO be
right -
Since the beginning Of time, since there have
been any eleooas there has not been any contested
election case which has been reopened. III 1t Is
allowed there is end to the contest AS 1t Is, the
term OF the ONCE which is now contested is more
Than half expired. The supreme Court would not
have listened to the argument in the case for sim
gle instant n It had not been for the purpose OF
one OF the grounds for the opposition to your in
reference in this is that such interference is
not proper An Injunction w1l be made to prevent
the heads which the other sde say are the only
heads under which injunctons can be granted.
come under those heads. Here 1t can come under
tine head OF rreparable injury to the public. IL the
att rneyship is In such tenure, how IL the attorney
to exercise the moral power OF his oflice? How is
he to get TO understand his business? Who is to
carry on the immense business Of the criminal
court?
We are here for peace, for tranquility. We have
the greatest respect for the court below Mr. Bl1dle
has said that 1t is unusual thing to have defen
dant In q case restrained. But Mr.. sheppard now
is here as plaintiff. Mr.. Gibbons is the holder OF
the office, and Mr. Sheppard wishes him displaced
and himself substituted He is therefore, the plain
tif. 1t is very common for the one who was ORR
ginally the defendant TO become the plaintiff as
is the case with Mr.. Sheppard.
II the other side put the error on the ground OF an
error in fact, in this case they have slipped tier
time They are too late to remedy error Of fact.
II the case is opened, they say that they will only
reconsider the arithmetcal facts. Is 1t not likely
that, II they open 1t at all, they will again hear it
upon its merits, and on that ground change their
verdict and overturn yours? There never was
case in which a court was allowed to amend judg-
ment in errors Of fact My learned friend has not
succeeded in showing and cannot show any case in
which O court reconsidered on grounds OF error of
fact.
The certiorari which prevented the Court at that
time from granting new trial, from hearing it
over again, and from deciding over again, was Mr..
Sheppard's. Why did he not drop it at once and
let the Court decide then? 1t was because he
thought that this Court would decide according to
the evidence He preferred to go on to this Court,
rather than trust again to the court which had
already decided against him. Should he be allowed
TO go back again merely because he thinks that
the other court would decide otherwise?
The ground we stand upon is plain. Mr. Sheppard
will not and cannot present the case to the lower
court as II the mistake in Judgment was OF recent
date. In this case he can give reason for letting
the new trial pass
The case is held under advisement.