The United States v. Griffin and Brailsford, [LAW OF The United States v. Bowers and Mathews, [Law of The United States v. Holmes, [Law OF NATIONS. CON- The United States v. Lancaster, [PRACTICE.] V 184 184 412 433 Wiltberger (The United States v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.] 76 Welch, (Mandeville v.) [COMMON LAW.] 277 291 Wendell, (Polk's Lessee v.) [Local Law. LAW.j MEMORANDA, The case of Bullard v. Bell, the decision of which in the Court below is reported in the first volume of Mr. Mason's Reports, p. 243, was argued at February Term, 1819, by Mr. Pinkney for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Webster for the defendant in error, in the absence of Mr. Justice TODD. The Judges then present being equally divided in opinion, the Court, at this Term, directed a new argument, and the cause was continued to the next Term, by consent of counsel, for that purpose. The case of the Amiable Isabella, Munos, Claimant, was argued at this Term by the Attorney-General, Mr. Pinkney, and Mr. Wheaton, for the captors, and by Mr. Harper and Mr. Gaston for the claimant, and continued to the next Term for advisement. The cases of Love et al. v. Simm's Lessee, argued by Mr. Jones for the plaintiff, and by the Attorney-General and Mr. Harper for the defendant in error, and of Green v. Biddle, argued by Mr. B. Hardin for the plaintiff, no counsel appearing for the defendant in error, were also continued to the next Term for advisement. ADVERTISEMENT. THE Editor of these Reports is engaged in preparing for the press an Analytical Digest of the Decisions of this Court, from its establishment in 1789, to the last Term, including the Decisions in the Continental Court of Appeals in Prize Causes, during the war of the revolution, which will be published during the present vacation. REPORTS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY TERM, 1820. (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.) HOUSTON V. MOORE. The act of the State of Pennsylvania, of the 28th of March, 1814, (providing, (sec. 21.) that the officers and privates of the militia of that State, neglecting or refusing to serve, when called into actual service, in pursuance of any order or requisition of the President of the United States, shall be liable to the penalties defined in the act of Congress of the 28th of February, 1795, c. 277., or to any penalty which may have been prescribed since the date of that act, or which may hereafter be prescribed by any law of the United States, and also providing for the trial of such delinquents by a State Court Martial, and that a list of the delinquents fined by such Court should be furnished to the Marshal of the United States, &c. and also to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States, in order that the further proceedings directed to be had thereon by the laws of the United States might be completed,) is not repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States. THIS was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, in a case where was drawn in question the validity of a statute of that 5wh 1 146 41 50f 412 5wh 1 165 278 State, on the ground of its repugnancy to the con- Martial an accurate list. And as soon as the said Court Martial shall have decided in each of the cases which shall be submitted to their consideration, the President thereof shall furnish to the Marshal of the United States, or to his deputy, and also to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States, a list of the delinquents fined, in order that the further proceedings directed to be had thereon by the laws of the United States, may be completed." Houston, the plaintiff in error, and in the original suit, was a private, enrolled in the Pennsylvania militia, and belonging to the detachment of the militia which was ordered out by the Governor of that State, in pursuance of a requisition from the President of the United States, dated the 4th of July, 1814. Being duly notified and called upon, he neglected to march with the detachment to the appointed place of rendezvous. He was tried for this delinquency before a Court Martial summoned under the authority of the executive of that State, in pursuance of the section of the statute above referred to. He appeared before the Court Martial, pleaded not guilty, and was in due form sentenced to pay a fine; for levying of which on his property, he brought an action of trespass in the State Court of Common Pleas, against the Deputy Marshal by whom it was levied. At the trial in that Court, the plaintiff prayed the Court to instruct the Jury, that the first, second, and third paragraphs of the 21st section of the above statute of Pennsylvania, so far as they related to the militia called into the 1820. Ho ston V. Moore. |