|
|
|
signed on the 2d of April. Under these circumstances
does the case come on to be heard at this term ?.
Mr. Rogers said that he had considered the question
carefully, and it was perfectly futile to pretend that the
filing of the answers could deprive him of his right of ap-
peal. The application had been made to Judge Martin on
the bill, which soon found its way into the hands of the
counsel for the respondents, and they had slipped in their
answers before the court had had time to consider the
question, and this could make no difference. He contin-
ued at some length, drawing a distinction between the
case before the court and the decided case of Steigerwald
and Winans.
Mr. Horwitz said he understood the court to inquire
"whether, in the situation in which the case now stood,
it was competent for the court to hear it at the present
term?" When the case of Steigerwald and Winans was
before the Court of Appeals, (for he had tried the case, )
he took the position in it now assumed by their very
learned brother, that it was futile and absurd on the part
of the court (although he did not use that language be-
fore the court) to deprive him of his right of appeal, be-
cause the defendant had "slipped in" (to use the learned
counsel's language) his answer. But the Court of Ap-
peals thought otherwise, and he had ever since supposed
that to be the settled law of this court.
Mr. H. then argued at length for the purpose of show-
ing that although proof had been taken in the case of
Steigerwald and Winans, that did not distinguish it from
the present case or render the principle then decided in-
applicable. He referred to Bell and Purvis, 15th Mary-
land, and other authorities.
Mr. Brown said that Mr. Wallis, who was the counsel
more particularly of the Police Commissioners, was de-
tained at Washington, in the trial of a cause before the
Supreme Court, and he was therefore here to represent,
in conjunction with his friend Mr. Horwitz, the respon-
dents. That, so far as they were concerned, they would
be perfectly willing, if the court thought it had the pow-
er, to have the question considered and disposed of now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
 |
