The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-14

well as the Commonwealth, may, under such
regulations as shall be prescribed by law, re-
move the indictment and proceedings or trans
cript thereof, into the Supreme Court.
And he further AYERS that at the time said
judgment of affirmance was rendered by the
Court on the Indictment there was no "regula-
tion prescribed by law by which the proceedings,
or transcript thereof could be removed into
this Court.
But so it is, that since that date, to wit on
the fifteenth day of February, 1870, the Legisla-
ture CT Pennsylvania passed an act entitled IAN
act to allow writs of error in cases of murder
and voluntary manslaughter."
TO the end that the defendant Paul Schoeppe,
may have the benefit of this act of Assembly, he
claims that this honorable Court shall now ex-
anime ''the proceedings" the bills of exceptions
to the admission and rejection of evidence, and
the bills of exception to the charge of the Court
and answers to the points taken by him, and
sealed by the said Court of Oyer and Termner,
with view to a correction of the same, If any
exist. 'And this the said Paul Schoeppe prays
may be inquired of by this honorable Court, and
the plea of the said Commonwealth may be
overruled.
And for a further replication the said Paul
Schoeppe, by his attorney, says:-That although
true it is that the indictment and judgment of
the Court of Oyer and Terminer in this case
was before this honorable court, and the said
judgment is affirmed on the 14th day of Feb
ruary, 1870, as on writ of error at common
law, yet he AYERS that the proceedings, the bills
OF exception to the admission and rejection of
CflhOutc, anu Tue eAC6DblO0S JO Lu6 CuATRc VI
the Court, and the Courts answer to the points
taken by the defendant and sealed by said Court
of Oyer and Terminer of Cumberland county,
nor has any judgment ever been rendered upon
them by this court.
And he further AYERS in this, his replication,
that the Constitution of Pennsylvania, article 5,
section s. declares, ETC., as set forth in the first
part of this replication
And he further AYERS, that on the - day of
February, 1870, bill intended by the Legisla-
ture to enable the defendant to bring the ''pro-
ceediDgs," the bill of exceptions to the admis-
sion and rejection of evidence, to the charge of
the Court, and the answers to the points in this
very case, before the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania to be examined and corrected, if any
errors existed, was passed by both houses of the
Legislature, in the words set forth as an act of
Assembly in the first part OF this replication.
That this bill was presented to the Governor on
the - day of February, 1870, who did not ap-
prove it, but returned it to the Senate with his
objections, that Immediately both the Senate and
House OF Representatives proceeded to recon-
slider said bill, and after due consideration, they
passed the same by two-thirds and over in both
the Senate and House, by which it became law.
And the said defendant further saith that in pur-
suance of said law and under its provisions the
bills of exception taken by the defendant, and
sealed by the Court of Oyer and Terminer
(never having been adjudicated), are now
brought up on this writ of error, end that the
full record is, now before them to determine
whether error has been committed therein; and
this the defendant prays may be inquired after
by this Honorable Court, and that the plea of
said Commonwealth may be dismissed.
w. II. MILLER,
8. HEPBURN, Jr.,
Attorneys for plaintiff in error.
DemuIrer.-The plaintiff in error ought not
to have or maintain his writ of error, because
the said Commonwealth says that the said act
of Assembly, passed by the Legislature of Penn
sylvania, did not become law of the said Com
monwealth until after the entry of the judgment
by this honorable Court on the previous writ of
error issued in this case; that this case was not
then pending case. Wherefore, judgment is
prayed of the said Paul Schoeppe by his present
writ of error in this case to have and maintain
aught. c. A. MCLAUGHLIN,
WIN. j. SHEARER,
Attorneys for defendant in error.
The Court held the matter under advisement,
and ordered the cause to be heard during the
week. commencing the fourth Monday of May
(23), 1870, and ordered the Prothonotary to
place it on the trial list for the week.
The court then adjourned till Monday at 10
o'clock.
The above pleadings are certified from the
record of the court.