Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

184

184

T'he United States v. Griffin and Brailsford, [Law of

NATIONS. ConstituTIONAL Law.]
The United States v. Bowers and Mathews, [Law of

Nations. ConsTITUTIONAL Law.]
The United States v. Holmes, (LAW OF NATIONS. CON-

STITUTIONAL Law.]
The United States v. Lancaster, (Practice.) ;

V

412 433

The Venus, [PRIZE.]

127

W

Wiltberger (The United States d.) [CONSTITUTIONAL Law.] 76 Welch, (Mandeville v.) (Common Law.]

277 Wallace v. Anderson, (PRACTICE.)

291 Wendell, (Polk’s Lessee -.) (Local Law.j

293

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 advisemeat.

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.

[blocks in formation]

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 bave been prescribed since the date of tbat 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

Vol. V.

1

180.

Houston

Moore.

State, on the ground of its repugnancy to the constitution and laws of the United States, and the decision was in favour of its validity. The statute which formed the ground of controversy in the State court, was passed on the 28th of March, 1814, and enacts, among other things, (sec. 21.) that every non-commissioned officer and private of the militia who shall have neglected or refused 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 the Congress of the United States, passed on the 28th of February, 1795; and then proceeds to enumerate them, and to each clause adds" or shall be liable to any penalty which may have been prescribed since the date of the passing of the said act, or which may hereafter be prescribed by any law of the United States.” The statute then further provides that, “ within one month after the expiration of the time for which any detachment of militia shall have been called into the service of the United States, by or in pursuance of orders from the President of the United States, the proper

brigade inspector shall summon a general or a regimental Court Martial, as the case may be, for the trial of such person or persons belonging to the detachment called out, who shall have refused or neglected to march therewith, or to furnish a sufficient substitute; or who, after having marched therewith, shall have returned, without leave from his commanding officer, of which delinquents the proper brigade inspector shall furnish to the said Court

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

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, glected 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

he ne

« ForrigeFortsett »