The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-04-09
LEGAL INTHLL1anNcE.
The District AttorBeyship-JudGe Read Dis
solves His IniunctiOn-Rr, sheppard May

n
election, Judge Read this morning dissolved the
preliminary Injunction granted by him a few days
SINCE, delivering the following naed:v =, ctoor
$685. in the city OF Philadelphia, was frdiu OF con-
tested election cases There was the contested eec.
and County OF Philadelphia tried, and decided by
joint committee OF the Senate aud House OF Repre-
sentatives at Harrisburg. The elections In the
Third and Fifth Congressional districts were also
contested in Congress, one OF which has been de-
termined, and the other is still pending, If not re-
Gently decided.
Besides these there were seven contested election
cases tried before the President Judge and his
ciates OF the Court Of Common Pleas either as hold
ing that Court or the Court Of Quarter Sessions The
contested offices were the Mayor, District Attorney,
City Solicitor, City Controller Receiver OF Taxes,
City commissioner, and Prothonotary OF the Court
of Common Pleas In the month OF october, 1862
petitions of qualified electors were filed in all these
cases, complaining in each of them of false return
and undue election for the particular office.
on the 14th of November motions were made in
all the cases to quash the petitions, and were filed
with reasons. These motions were argued together,
by Messrs Rawle and Meredith for the contestants,
and by MessIs. Hirst ana Phillips for the respond
ents, and on the 5th Of December the motions to
quash were overruled, and the respondent IN each
was ordered to file his answer on or before the
3ist December lS6S, on which day all the answers
ON the 9th January, 1852 the Court appointed
William p. Messlck and Richard NJ. Batturs eX-
anlnerS to take testimony, who on the llth January
entered upon their duties and were attended by
William H. Rawle Erastus POulsOn, and James 4.
MITCHELL Esqs., counsel for contestants, aud by
Lewis c. CASSIDY and Isaac Gerhart, Esqs., counsel
phic reporter. The contestants testimony COM
menced on the 11th January and closed on the 9th
April, having occupied 81 days in actual business
sittings. Mr. Mann, on the part OF the contestants,
and Mr.. Sellers on the part of the respondents,
were present during very large pn portion Oh THIS
The testimony on the part OF therespondents COM
menced on the Sd May and closed on the 2lst July,
occupying 33 days and covering 69 pages OF printed
matter Messrs. Sellers Gerhart, and Fletcher for
the respondents, and Messrs Manu. Mitchell, and
DOnegan for the contestants.
The testimony on the part OF the contestants in
rebutta commenced on the Goth July and closed on
the 8lst july 1862 occupying six sitting days. The
testimony ON the part of the contestants IN chief
and in rebutal covered 90l pages OF printed matter.
The report OF the examiners was filed on the 9Th
September, the Court having liked that day for the
argument. .-,-,..-,
exempiHed in this case. During its progress, one
counsel on each side went to Europe, aud
on the 18th OF July II was stated in open court by
one of the counsel Tor the respondents tnat OF
the counsel was going to the White Mountains aud
would not return until September; another had to
leave the city 10y the advice Of his physicians, and
another was IN Europe; so that, 1t was ordered by
the Court that the cases should Ds discussed IN
August the Mayor, District AtLomeyaud City Com
missioner would bc IN court without counsel.
The arguments commenced early in September,
and continued for several days; Messrs danu,
Strong, and Meredith for the Contestants, and
Messrs, Sellers, Phllp5 aud lIcSt for tle reSpOn-
dents.
the 10th OF October, 1852 II ordered, adudgcd,
and decreed by the Court that at the election ncld
in the city and county OF Philadelphia on the second
TUESDAY OF OCLODef, 1868. NnalleS was
elected 10 the otice OF District Attorney. SHnisr
DEGREES were made IL the other in favor OF the
contestants, except In the case of the Mayor, ia
which case the decree was IN favor OF the iuclm-
bent and this Office became no longer the subject Of
contest. In the six remaining cases appeals, SO
called, were entered by the respondents IN each
case, and wrtS of certOrdri were sued out aud
allowed by the Chief Justice at Pittshurg, on Mon
day. the 18th OF october, and were filed in the proper
office Of the court on the next day, Tuesday,
the 10Th Of OctoDer
These writs of certiorari brought before the
Supreme Court nothing but the records as they stood
on that day. These six writs of certiOrari were
heard before full bench on the 27th, 2Sth and goth
January last, the plaintiffs above being represented
by Messrs Biddle, Phillips, and Hirst and the de-
PENDANTS above by Messrs. Rawle Mann, and
Strong (nOw an Associate Justice OF the Supreme
Court OF the United States: The argument on both
ary the opinion OF the Court was delivered by Judge
Agnew, in which Judge Williams and myself entirely
cOncurred There was dissenting opinion by the
Chief Justice, concurred in by Judge SharswoOd.
The Court looked neither at the evidence nor tkt
up by any of the writs OF certiorari but simply at
the record Itself, and finding no error Oh its face
affirmed the DEGREES OF the court below.
Nothing subsequent to the 10th October was be-
fore them, and therefore whatever took place after
wards was not passed upon, and was not affected
by the afirmance OF the DEGREES.
In the case of the District Attorney within the
term OF the court at which the decree was entered
to wit, on the 2Sth October, 1862 petition was pre-
scented by Furman Sheppard setting forth certain
errors and omissions in the calculations, upon which
the decree was based, and praying to be heard tC
controvert any Of the principles OF law adopted b!
the Court in its opinion This petition was received
and directed by the Court to be nled, and cop!
thereof was served upon MIR. Gibbons or his counsel
The Court fixed OCTOBER 80, 1869, 10 hear an argu
ment on behalf Of -. the i,a present plalntii pLSid
day both appeared in person or by coun
sell and were heard upon the allegation
in the said petition, whereupOn the court held tn
same under advisement On the 4th OF November
supplemental petition was filed by leave OF tn
coHrt and copy of the same served upon the pre-
sent plaintiff or his counsel. To these petitions tn
present plaintiff filed answers, but suggesting no od
lection or eXceron to the right OF the court to con
slider and deter,Llne upon the matters set forth Il
the said petitions For reasons satisfactory to III
court they reserved these Judgments upon the sal
petitions and answers.
The decree of the Court of Quarter Sessions hav
ing been affirmed, the court took up the said pet
tions and answers, in order to dispose OF the same
and with the knowledge and assent OF the couuse
of the paintih, and defendant assigned day for tn
hearing thereof, which was postponed until the 2St
OF March, 1910, when the present plaintiff hled
paper objecting to any further proceedings in TIA
case, because OF the final decree OF the 10th of OctC
ber, and because on the 25th OF October he took til
oath OF Office, and because the Judgment Of t
Court OF Quarter Sessions was affirmed on certiOrd
1st OF April, at 10 A. NJ, to hear the argument upO
this paper, and upon the petitions and answers
both Of which petitions and both OF said answers
have been furnished with copies.
on the list of April / was applied TO by Messr
McMurtrle and Meredith, and furnished with a COZ
of the bill in this case, and granted the inunctlO
fixing the heariDg for Monday, the 4th inst. III
hearing did not take place until Tuesday, which ga
me an opportunity to consult Judges Agnew al
Williams, with whom had united in the MAORI
opinion of the Supreme Court
We all agreed that tina decision OF the Supren
Court decided nothing, except as to what was oefO
us, and did not affect any future legal action ia
might be taksn by the court below.
The Court OF Quarter Sessions had a clear rig
within the term to re-eEamne and, If necessary,
reverse thelr own Judgment or Decree
! see that they did within the term allow prOc0e
ings which might lead to such result which We