Evening journal., 1896-12-14
NO CASE AGAINST HUTSON.
THE KENT COUNTY PROTHONO-
TARY UP FOR CONTEMPT.


BUT SUPERIOR COURT FINDS HIM
NOT GUILTY. BECAUSE THE
FORMAL APPEAL FROM SUPER
IOR COURTS MANDAMUs ACTED
AS A STAY.
DOVER, Dec. 14.-On Saturday the
Superior Court for Kent county again
sat in special session. Chief Justice
Lore and Associate Judges Cullen and
Grubb were on the bench and they de-
cided that, in the Kent county election
contest the writ of error acted as a su-
persedeas, and that Prothonotary Hut
son was not in contempt of court in
refusing to issue the writ of peremp-
tory mandamus compelling the Board
of Canvass to meet again and make
a recount of the vote. All the judges
of the court agreed.
When the Superior Court opened,
Walter II. Hayes, of Wilmington, at
torney for the Addicks, or Union Re-
publicans, moved that Prothonotary
HutsOn be compelled to show cause
why he should not be attached for con-
tempt of court.
EX-ChancellOr WOlcOtt, for the
Democrats, replied to Mr.. Hayes He
said that the writ of errors taken by
the Democrats. and the accompanying
bond, having been filed and approved
by Justice Marvel, of the Court of Err
rors and Appeals, acted as a superse-
deas.
Chief Justice Lore announced that
there was nothing on the records of
the court to show that a writ of error
had been granted. and the court
wanted a record of the case. The
Democratic lawyers then agreed that
the rule against PrOthonotary Hutson
to show cause why he was not in con-
| tempt should be issued, and it was
made returnable several hours later.
When the court reconvened the
Democratic lawyers made their answer,
claiming that PrOthonOtary HutsOn
had refused the writ of mandamus be-
cause he believed that the appeal acted
as a stay of execution. The prOthono-
tary also claimed that no written or
verbal order had been given to him to
issue the writ of mandamus.
The case was now before the court,
and after hearing the statement of the
prothonotary, Chief Justice Lore an
nOunced that the court was unani-
nous in the opinion that the writ of
error acted as a supersedeas and that
Mr.. Hutson was not guilty Of con-
tempt. The court cited several cases
in support of their decision, and an
nounced that they were willing to
near arguments, however.
Mr.. Hayes opened for the Union Be
publicans. His speech was based en-
tirely on the claim that a writ of error
did not act as a supersedeas in man
damus cases, but only in ordinary law
suits, where judgment had been OBJ
tanned and damages awarded, and the
case appealed.
Ex- Chancellor Wolcott replied, anC
cited opinions by Chancellor Ridgeley
and Judge Grubb where they sustained
the opinion that a writ OF error did ac
as a stay. Chief Justice Lore then an
, nounoed that the rule for contemp
against Prohonotary Hutson was dis
missed.
Mr. Hayes then jumped to his fee
and said: According to the law o
this state these petitioners have n,
adequate legal remedy" The chief jus
tice replied that the court could no
make the laws, but merely interpre
them. While he regretted that thu
case could not be brought to a speed,
termination, the decision was th'
only one that could be made.
Probably to-day the Union Republi
can lawyers will ask for a special ses
sion of the Court of Errors and Ap
peals to assemble as sOCn as possible.