The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-05-08
CItt Gntslligsaftr
=. ,o,, ., nua u Fourteenth Street
WAR CASES
.,.,,,A in The t""r' Of Appeals o"
FS''' saturday ln~i.


\ *S'''' saturday Last.
/ t.r q; rasrs, referred to among
4 ,.,,a,.s =, ''war cases," were decided
w %%ss%,.,ciygtof Appeals Of this State or
9'.ssA. They were learee vs.. ki'z
I |', ,'t,,,, he Mineral county Circuit)
4 Wil.u. IyT '. rrceIanl fFom the Preston
rrr;: %r..:, ,;filcv.. I''','ead tft0m n, Green
A S,;t,. spl White v'' cF"mp * shanklin
4 'ton Ioa $auucys Circuit,
',r rS'.. ,,,.s layolyri Section 35 Of
4 ,.,i,I,s d the Constitution, which pro-
yitles ih"t ,.,;, y.,,o rho ,;1od ~
,,,tti,imlIla,ht late war between the
I,,,'s,, a'uS'r',., d the united States and Il
o".E'iS w, II ,S+ re0p,e thereof, on either side,
pMt;ITE' p,;I i. lb.e many proceeding, civil or
s"-" '.;,r;ss nor shall lis property be siezcd
'.I' .YTI pn!rr lEsI process issued upon
!"iem,l,.,rJ,ur,s heretofore rendered,
!-pt !, o,St,u i, i, Uct4u,e Of my act done nc.
,',Iio,,o,.e " ll,as,s oi civilized warfare,
in ,lr pr,srcauon Of said war, by either OF
he pari,s 'htNlo.
J Cbspt,r;,, Acts Of 7@2.73, undertook to
,rl I'M. Constitutional provision into execu-
sou and srJy;lrd in section 3rd that the
,rtuLal.t III such Judgment might file
Is reti,oa alleging mat the judgment
va. ,Vuur,d because Of MI act done ac-
,,rJjr.tu the ll,lSrs OF civilized warfare
IN tue prosecution Of the war, and II the
ropr WIS satisfied Of the truth OF the peti-
lion j, should set aside the Judgment and
snUta ntw trial. II was held by the
J0ut.oi Appeals ,lJUhnson, pres't.) that
sid s,csvll WAS not authorized by the
Nth amenIment 10 the Constitution Ot the
rpi:ed States, btclUse he was deprived Of
Li, proltHy OjEd srment without due
pfGes4 0i law And, further, that it WIS
not authorized by the provision OF the
Ts>, EHslniA Constitution that the
4cii0a w.s Intended to put iu opera
iaa, beflpse. acvuidin. to that provision,
the Judgments must stand until it
/. aarrlaintd by due process OF law that
they were secured because Of such acts.
And ahsH so ascrriaiued they were 10 be
treated AS uulIltirs. But ii 2scertained
tsal'Sey Neyeuo, recovered because OF such
acts they were entirely unaffected by the
Constitutional pmyiSion., Held, that said
caG.e oi the Constitution is not inhibited
BY >tc. ~ 0i Art. ! oi the Constitution OF
The United States, because u judgment
founded Gltn a,0H is not many sense a con-
tgrt, and therefore it does not impair the
obligation oi . contract. That it is not in.
Mbltd by Sec. otihe lith amendment to
TIE Consultation 0i the United States, be-
Cause it dos not attempt to deprive per-
-0a dtPFoMry withou, due process OF law.
Due process o. law, us used in said section, is
The die course O! legal proceedings, accord
As 10 the rules that were established for
the protection OF life, liberty aud property.
lPetiloEs are therefore dismissed in the
atst three eases above named.}
The fourth ease, THAI OF White rs. Crump
AsaaEk!in, ,urrttes Of ". II. French, on
suptiEcIeas bond, was as follows: In
ssa White recovered judgment for s., ,00G
against French for false Imprisonment.
frenct was Il Confederate captain. Frenc!,
applied alter the war for writ OF error |,
S4s gTanted OF his giving Il bond in the
penalty Of 4,OQ0, with Crump 4 Shanklin
'ssG'eties. In 1870 the Court OF Appeal:
acknowledgements. Meantime French
d:ed In i>;6E White, the plaintiff
brought action on the supersedeas bond
asainst the snretes. They filed specia
plea alleging that the original judgment
"As recCTered against French because o.
an act done according to the usages o
ctyftzed war. To this plea the plaintiff
objected, Objections overruled and tn,
Plea hted. The plaintiff excepted
4liSe was tried in the court be
tow, with verdict and judgmen
ioF The snfrties. White, the plaintiff, Oh
t1lnet writ from the Court OF Appeals
t1eIdthst the clause in the State Constitll
ton operates tex propria vigore,' AM
Gsatii!e Plea presented perfect defense +
tie action on the ground that it was tru
that the Judgment WAS void, rs much SO a
II Reversed by the appellate court. That
supeEseteas bond has no effect independ
ent oi the judgment itself, and that it
late depended on the fate OF the judy
'"ent, AMI ,hat therefore ii iepriving th'
lNi? o. t@s Judgment WAS not impairin;
Mf obligation OiA contract, neither woult
~ !, oe'o mold :he supersedeas bond invalid
1Ae tFai Of the issue in tho caus
WIS WI due process OF law. Held, tina
It the act done was done in gone faith, tt
aNs the side in whose service the part.
was and was such an act rs would be re
cosnlzu! by the rules OF civilized war, tha
whether done or not by the command OF
superior officer, party could not be hell
fable therefor. Held, that IN officer in tn
army has tile right 10 arrest any one whom
lie has reason TO suspect OF aiding tn
enemy or threatening to do SO, and sue
arrest anti imprisonment is according t
ihs uSasrs OF civilized warfare.
Ills last case is expected TO 10 to til
supreme Court OF the U. 5. on the exceI
iloE noted above.