The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-18

AND EXPLANATION TO TIE COURT BY
MIR. HOWARD.
Yesterday there was the largest gathering
OF members of the par and OF the public IN
me Supreme Court since the memorable
dav on " hich the Elyson Chaboon case was
decided and the Capitol disaster occurred.
IL was understood that the Court would de-
| liver their decision in the matter OF the APP
picaion Of John Howard. Esq, for re-
hearing Of The cause OF Gl9uIe's executor
uerSuS The Mutual Assurance Society ol
| Virginia. and IL was expected that III Inc
course Of their opinion they would deal
with certain personal points contained IN
Mr.. Ho1ara's printed argument. The an
tcipatIons OF the as>emblage were realized,
when Judg; Christian read the following
unanimous opinion tJudge Moncure not
sitting aud absent from the city,:
These causes were heard together IN this
court. and the decree Of the ChaOcery Court
of the cltv OF Richmond IN the enc case, and
the Judgment Of the Circuit Court IN the
other, were affirmed bv a m1j0ilty of the
count. CONSISTING Of Judge MDncuIe, Sta
pics, add myself; judges Anderson aud
Buyks dissenting. These decisions were
rendered on the 18th div OF November last.
| On the 81 Of December following Mr.. joan
| Howard. one OF the counsel Tor the appel
Anis, filed petition for rehearing. tie
did not IN his petition set forth any reasons
| for the sane, as required by the rules OF TINS
court. but be asked leave 10 file note ui
argument at an early day in support OF
his applica,on. fnis court thought
| that this note should be in the hands
Of the Judges before tp cnd 0i
| ihat term, which eXpired on the 18Th OF
| December. Bot Mr. Howard was not ready,
and earnestly begged for indulgence un'il
| the fist day OF the JIuuary term; Whch
was granted him. When the c0urt com
mpnced lis session here on the J'h OF Jan
nary, 1881, Nj. HOwafd'S note had not been
fled. lie was applied to for II. lie was
not ready. and asked for further delay 4;
which was again allowed him, and not untll
the 2Gth day Of JanuIrv WAS his note IN the
hands cf the judge. T" what END ana
with what purpose Mr.. Howard has ayaiIed
himself OF The indulgence given him by The
court is already known 10 the country
through the pubic pres.
Whrn an application rs made here for
rehearing it i the practice OF thls-cOurt 10
grant or refuse it without discussion or
comment. This practice would be adhered
y
character OF the note uf argument fled in
support OF the petition. Mr.. Howard hs>
not been content with IN atiemnt TO show
error in the opinion OF the mi 1rlty, but be
has gene out OF bis way 10 crliicl>e the con-
duct II the court in Language that cXciteS
both surprise and regret. The entire pa.
per abounds with covert allusiOnS and in
sinuations calculated 10 create false implies
int II a.
charges, are made That the court was lend
ing itself 10 some scheme or plan for pre-
mature heaiiug of the causes. Indeed, Mr..
Howard does not hesitate 10 say that whilst
other counsel were associated with him he
neither received nor expected any assist
ance from them; tina; upon him rested
the chief responsibility Oi guarding the III
teresiS o. the parties concerned. and yet
without his knowltdge or consent. and
much to blS surprise the causes were, by
motion. placed on the privileged docket OF
The court, that they were brought on for a
hearing IN spirit Of hurry aud precip-
fancy. and in cOuSo oqucncc Of his numerous
professional engagements, and not eXpec'-
ing the extraordinary contingency Of hav-
lng suddenly 10 encounter this great lillga.
tlOn, he was not prepared fol the occasion,
and accordingly when the case was heard
his brief had not been fled, and only part
OF 1t was in the hands OF the printer: and,
further, that the causes were virtually de-
cldcd at the March tenn, 1850. For it is
well understood" he SAYS, "that the
causes were passed upon III conference at
that term before the bsIef Of tue writer
could be presented, or was considered by
the court" This is
nm ,rnur.pu.c pCpprcpNr,Tr IN, rur
FACTS
and bis first arraigument OF the court. Let
us see how far be i sustained. Mr.. How
ard tails, curi0usly enough, 10 state that The
motion TO put the Gus on the privileged
docket was made in the Interest and for The
btnPlil Of his clients, the appellants. II II
was 10. made by Mr.. Howard hims II. it
certainty was by one OF lis associates. Tue
motion was refused or the Is Il Of NOyem-
Der, 1879. II was renewed by the appel
lanls again in December, and The court
finally determined-bOth parties consent
ing-tO grant The motion, and accordingly
hey were put on the privile ed docket on
the 5ib OF December and Sc for hearing thc
6i>t OF the January term. At that term
Judge Crump, one OF tue counsel for the
appclCes, asked for delay, and It was
GRANTED him, and HE cases were passed un-
III about the 1lh Of February following.
AZ that time Mr. John Howard, wishing 10
make some additions 10 the records from
the court below, asked for a continuance Of
the eases uGtll the March term, common
cling the 9TH OF March, which was granted
him.
Aud this court being willing and desirOuS
10 allow all The counsel the fullest Oppor-
81. l.,..l
until the 23d Of March, 1850 lt thus ap-
pears that Mr. Howard hid from the } n 0f
December, 1879, 10 the 23d of MaIch. 1880.
10 prepare for his argument. And this Is
the "hurry and precipiiancy - in which
the cases were brought on for bearing. By
rule Of thus court only two hours are al
Iolted 10 "a side for oral discussion. In these
two cases the couIt. desiIi0g to give cpun-
sci the fullest opportunity Of beiog heard,
gave to tue four counsel Iour DAYS for the
oral argument. Tue greater part OF the
time allotted to The appellants was occupied
bv Mr.. John Howard, his associate. Colonel
& prdoD, consuming but small portion.
Mr. Howard, In addition 10 his oral argu.
ment, flied also, before the argument was
conmenced, brief Of closely. printed mat
Ter, Covering slXty.sIX pages, going over
the whole ground Of CONFERENCE.-The same
argument ne had made in the Circuit Court
Of RlcnmOnd IN one OF the cases which wa
there heard.
Mr.. William Green, also Of counsel for
the appellants in both cases. tIed printed
britf Of twelve pages. The Hon. James
Lyons. who was also counsel for The appel
lauts 10 Doth cases, tied printed brief 0f
thirty pages as his opening arsumrnl, and
A brief tt thirf y.tMO paVps ~ his cDnplud.
ing argun.ent in reply 10 fbe counsel for the
hrDeiiees. whether those gentlemen, Mr..
William Green, the Hon. Jame> Lyons, aud