The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-10-03

session of 1899 should be considered in
pari materia. The court had decided in
the Day case that an office could be
abolished entirely and so destroy the
rights of incumbent in 1t. The conten-
ton of his client was that the office of
solicitor for the district had been abol-
ished and had not been re-created in
any other form. The Legislature could
not more effectually abolish an office
than the office of solicitor of the district
had been abolished. He did not think
the court would say that the word "abol-
ish'' meant amend. Judge Furche
They have said it, have they notW
Judge Shuford: 81 think not" Judge
Shuford then took up the question as to
whether the office of solicitor of the
district having been abolished had been
established. He contended that such
was not the case because the district
had been changed and solicitors appoint
ed for each county.
As to the transfer of counties it had
been the custom to transfer counties
from one district of the Superior court
to another: there was no apparent rea-
son why the same should not be done
with regard to the criminal court: and
when the county was taken from de-
PENDANTS district the election of a soll-
citor for the county could not infringe
any right of defendant,
MIR. INGALLS, SIDE OF 1T.
Attorney Frank Carter, for Mr.. Mccall,
said that the legislation of 1899 was
only amendatory of previous legislation,
that If 1896 and 1897, and had not
destroyed the Eastern and Western
criminal circuits The addition or sub
traction of a few counties did not de-
stroy the identity of a circuit. The mis-
naming of an act could not give it a
further and larger effect than if it were
rightly labelled. Mr.. Mccall had CON.
tract with the State that he was to be
the one solicitor of the district. The
State could reduce his district or in
crease it-in the one case he would be
the loser, in the other he had a right
to be the beneficiary of the increase. So
long as the office continued to exist
either as a fat office or lean office
it must be the office OF Mr.. Mccall.
The Legislature had schemed to con
tinue the office and divide up its dtNies
among number of solicitors.
LUSK V. sT. PETER.
Mr.. V. s. Lrsk, speaking for Mr. Nc
Call. made what was perhaps one of the
most unique arguments, or rather dis
sertations, that the Supreme court has
heard in its history. AS the time of
each speaker was very limited Mr..
Lusk took up so much time with his run
ming start that he had the misfortune
TO be cut short in full career before he
reached his argument.
He said that Mr.. Cobb for Mr.. Webb
raised a question that raised the hair
on ones head Mr.. Webb had come
to the Legislature and by his infiu-
enee had secured the passage of a
law to give him an office. Then he
goes to the judge TO get an appointment
1T would do your honors good" ex
claimed the speaker, ito see him take
his seat with judicial dignity and it
would do your honors still further good
to see him march criminals off to the
chain gang. l am happy to say he has
not hanged anybody yet 1t reminds me
of the case OF Peter who was valiant
enough to cut off the ear of the high
priests servants, but after his master
was arrested his courage oozed ont at
The palms of his hands like Bob Acres,
and when weak woman accused him
OF being follower OF the master he
said, NO / amt The woman said
you are Peter said I'll swear / amt.
That is the way with Mr.. Webb. He
has been exercising the duties of the
office and getting the emoluments and
now he comes into court and swears
there is no such office" Amid the
smiles of the court Mr. Lusk was told
that his time was up and he took away
the burden of his argument unuttered.
Judge Charles A. Moore, representing
Mr.. Webb, said the act of 1899 had
given to the criminal court original jul
risdiction in criminal matters and not
concurrent jurisdictio and was therefore
void.
Mr.. Sonly speaking for Mr.. Webb said
that Mr.. Mccall had come into court
and insisted that the act of 1899 was
unconstitutional but yet claimed that I'M
der it he was entitled to the benefits
of the addition of new counties to his
district.
MIR. GLENN'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. r. b. Glenn said that the case
come before the court on the bare cold
proposition OF law: Was Mr.. Mccall
entitled to the solicitorship for nine
of them. Whatever opinion was taken
in previous cases his clients were emit
tied to act in the five counties added by
the Legislature. Had the Legislature a
right to add five counties and prescribe
how solicitors for them should be
chosen? 1t was clearly within the pow
ers given by the constitution article 30
section 4, which expressly declares that
courts inferior may be established and
their officers elected in such way as
the Legislature may from time to time
direct"
If Mr. Mccall had any contract with
the State it was only that Mr.. Mccall
should be solicitor of four counties and
have the emoluments derived therefrom.
In saying that he should not exercise
| the duties in the five counties added
after his contract, he was deprived of
| no right. The court had decided in Will
son VS.. Jordan that officers of the Grim
| inal court which was creature of the
Legislature had no powers except that
| given by that body As Mr.. Mccall
| had never been chosen solicitor of the
4ixy,1 A. 1,