Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-06-07
THE AINSWORTHCASE
The Question of the Governments
Right to Appeal.
ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL TODAY
The Matter Before the Court Of
Appeals.
S Me NOV Ell POINT S
SOME NOVEL POINTS

The Court of Appeals this afternoon con-
sidered the question Of the right Of the
United States to an appeal in criminal
case. The question came before the court
upon the appeal noted by District Attorney
Birney Friday last in the Ainsworth case.
In that case. as heretofore stated in The
Star. Judge McComas last Thursday sus-
tail ed the demurrer filed by Col. AIMS
worth to the indictment returned against
him on the I'd Of last April That indict-
ment charged Col Ainsworth with man
slaughter, in being criminally responsible
for the death of one Frederick Is. LOTUS,
one of the victims of the Ford's Theater
disaster Of the 9th of last June.
Upon the noting of the District attorneys
appeal from Judge McComas' decision,
transcript of the record was filed in the
Court of Appeals. and thereupon counsel
for Col. Ainsworth on Tuesday last moved
that the court dismiss the appeal noted by
the government. That motion was the one
considered by the court this afternoon.
Mr. j. n. Morrison. said to be an employe
OF th9 War Department. represented Col.
Ainsworth, and the District attorneys as
sistant, Mr.. Hugh T. Taggart, appeared on
behalf of the government.
Fer Ainsworth.
Mr.. Morrison argued that IL there existed
any authority for the governments appeal
at all It was found In the first provision of
section seven of the act establishing the
Court OF Appeals which was as follows:
ANY party a9grieved by any final order,
judgment or decree of the Supreme Court
OF the District of Columbia, or of any
Justice thereof, may appeal therefrom to
the Court of Appeals hereby created" But
that act. contended Mr.. Morrison did not
change CT add to previous laws relating to
appeals in criminal cases as to give in
such cases right Of appeal unknown to
the common law.
Furthermore. argued Mr. Morrison, the
court itself had. In the case of Redmond vs.
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company,
construed the language of the act in such
manner as to preclude such a contention
by the government. The act. as the court
held, did not intend the multiplicity of ap-
peals or the giving of the right of appeal
In cases where II had been previously de-
MED. except, of course, specifically pro-
vided for in the act.
Citing the case OF u. S. VS.. Sanger ia u
s., 80, Mr.. Morrison urged that il was
settled by overwhelming weight of author
ity that the state has no right to sue out a
writ OF error upon judgment in favor OF
the defendant in a criminal case, except
under and in accordance with express
statutes. whether the judgment was rem
dered upon verdict or upon a mere in
terlocutory order.
Mr.. TagRart's Contention.
Mr.. Teggart, in reply, contended that the
whole matter rested upon the courts de-
VI tfe question OF Wnetner the
United States came within the term '.any
party" The right of appeal. asserted Mr.
Taggart, was purely within the legislative
control. and could therefore be restricted or
extended as the legislature might deem
proper. The right OF appeal in a criminal
case was, said Mr.. Taggart. no newly-clatm-
ed one, and was one exercised at common
law and in early Maryland cases. He claim
ed that was shown in the case of the state
tMaryland) against Buchanan, II. and J.,
329. Such right of appeal was expressly
provided by statute in q number OF the
states.
In conclusion. Mr.. Taggart claimed that
II was very important to the government
that there should be such a right OF appeal.
That Importance he thought, was particu-
larly we'll illustrated in the present case. A
lower court might at any time misconstrue
a decision OF the appellate court, and the
government, having no right of appeal,
might forever rest at a great disadvantage.
At the conclusion of the brief argu-
ments the court announced that 1t would
reserve its decision.