National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-02-14
A FRESH START ORDERED
Sam StrOng's Big Suit to bs Tried
Over Again.
The Judgment Below Set Aside and the
Case Remanded at the Plaintiffs Costs
Opinion Delivered by Justice
Bagner-Tedious Legal Pro-
ceedings, which End
Where They Began.


The Strong Case.
The case Of Samuel Strong VS.. The District of
Columbia was disposed of in the court in gem
eral term yesterday, Justice Hagner delivering
the opinion of the court, which, by the way,
was his first since coming upon the bench
This was the famous trial before Justice Hum
phreys last September and has in all its
phases, been published in THE REPUBLICAN,.
There were on the bench Justices Wylie, Me-
Arthur, and Hagner.
The Judge, in delivering his opinion, stated
that II was united in by tho Chief Justice aud
his brethren then sitting upon the bench. He
stated that he had examined into the case with
q great deal of care, and bad been materially
aided by the arguments of the counsel on the
| respective sides. lie proposed to consider the
| motions seridtiBl.
First the molten for q new trial second
the motion in arrest of iudgmcnt--both of
which were overruled, and that brought them
up by u bill of exceptions.
Next followed the motion to strike out the
Judgment, in compliance with the stipulation,
and the other motion, to strike out the judg.
mcnt on the ground that it was obtained
through fraud. These two were certified to
the court in banc.
In regard to the motion for u now trial, the
principal point was as to the constitution of
the jury, and the question involved was
~
the purpose.
This cause was called at the May term of
/; the Circuit Court, and, under the rules of the
court, Jury should not be continued longer
! than the ternl unless to finish pending trial.
} On July II this case was called the jury
sworn, and then respitcd until September 10.
At that time the court rcconvencd and the
, jury called, a juror excused, and another
; sworn in his stead.
3 The next day another was excused and n Sec
4 a IL.
then composed of ten of the panel OF the May
term and two chosen from the bystandcrs.
Il When this was done then the entire jury was
i called and each man sworn separately. Under
Y these circumstances it was asked was there an
= Impending trial? They thought it extremely
u doubtful for If the court could substitute at
= that time two men, he might change eleven
i men TO sit in the cause leaving only one OF
= the May term panel and certainly that could
+. not DO called q regular jury for the term as
s. prescribed by the rules. There were grave
'f doubts whether or not the jury was competent
II to hear AMI proceed with the case. After the
d jury WAS sworn came up the motion to strike
n out certain exceptions, which WAS allowed III
c, some instances and oyerrued in others.
J, Then the motion WAS made to withdraw q
Il jdror and take hon.suit, which was also over.
s. ruled Then the presiding judge reconsdered
his ruling aud permitted the exceptions to be
= amended. The other side then asked for con-
J, tnuance and time to prepare their answer.
e This the court refused to allow and
!, directed the case to proceed. In their
9. opinion this was error as the de-
+ PENDANT should be allowed time to prepare nf.
s. ter amendments were allowed. 1t being for
.. the court to say how long the continuance
S. should last as to the state of tho proceedings
II in which the reports of the board Of audit and
Le auditors report were embraced and the stipu.
C. atiOns in this respect by counsel, there could
l. not be said to have been trial in the case at
l,1l In tI,n nj truy a
G. of a trial.
II, In respect to the stipulation united in by
k, counsel to govern the case he had not a great
ct deal to say. The attorneys in the courts wert
H. the officers of IL. They were its right hand
n, and the body would almost be powereSs with
'ir out them. The courts rely great deal on at
d. torneys aud stipuations. 1t frequently save.
rs. time aud expediates Justice. In regard to til,
kc stipulation for the withdrawal of a juror h'
ng said when that was brought to the knowledge
We of the court, in their opinion the court should
n have continued the cause, and there was NJ
ell alternative in the matter The parties eXccut
Ia ing it were bound by 1t and should not hav
been permitted to 60 outside of IL. The othc
he stipulation of which considerable had beer
OF said, could not be passed without some atten
rs ton 1t was said that it contained features tina
se alone should destroy any effect it otherwis
as might have had.
In the first place it should be remarke
ay that the stipulation was not brought into cour
no by either of the counsel, but by the plaintiff
esS himself. 1t had been remarked that such stiI
nut ulations were dangerous, because they nigh
ISIS eventually give counsel the running of til
court. They were not OF that opinion an
ok thought the dangers spoken of were mere con
m lectures. But il probably would be HIS sntici
lat patcd if lawyers entered into stipulatons an
ay then the plaintiffs seeing their chances advar
ay tageously, should come in and refuse abide b
the agreement. 1t was surprising to see th
plaintiff in this case come into court and sa
that he did not know what he signed and this
th- his signature to the agreement was obtaine
through a misrepresentation and fraud. Their
were other questions involved in this case M
necessary to decide, which could be more full
} of argued, as they should be, on the hearing
or the court below. There would be no chani
M, in the ordinary rule in regard to the costs
The order was that the Judgment be set asit
oh and the case remanded at the plaintiffs cost
question arose sometimes as to the prophet
fir of q division of the COSTS but in this instan
GUS they found that all this trouble grew out
rho the plaintiffs conduct and he alone should
~ responsible for the 1eXpense. Mr.. William 4
W. Cook remarked that it was an uncommon pr
ps, ceedings to tax costs in that manner, and tn
ara they generally went with trial. He thong
sIl' they ought to 60 back with the case and
ny chargable in the usual way.
Justice Hagner replied the costs referred
lol were those of the mstrial and covering t
ote case up,
al, Mr. Cook gave notice of an appeal to the 5
ana premc Court OF the United States.
on, ---a--
Yn, Assaulted for Projecting Her Property.
H. Yesterday afternoon, between five and {
o'clock, colOred man named Charles Stewa
J., at attempted to steal coat from in front
INty \ l.I, IT,,