FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32  
33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   >>  
ted; but the exception was overruled, and the return was held sufficient. In Buel vs. Van Ness,[4] also a writ of error to a State Court, the record was authenticated in the same manner. No exception was taken to it. These were civil cases. But it has been truly said at the bar, that, in regard to this process, the law makes no distinction between a criminal and civil case. The same return is required in both. If the sanction of the Court could be necessary for the establishment of this position, it has been silently given. [3] 1st Wh. 304, 361. [4] 8th Wh. 312. McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland,[5] was a _qui tam_ action, brought to recover a penalty, and the record was authenticated by the seal of the Court and the signature of the Clerk, without that of a Judge. Brown et al. vs. the State of Maryland, was an indictment for a fine and forfeiture. The record in this case, too, was authenticated by the seal of the Court and the certificate of the Clerk. The practice is both ways. [5] 4th Wh. 316. The record, then, according to the Judiciary act, and the rule and the practice of the Court, is regularly before us. The more important inquiry is, does it exhibit a case cognizable by this tribunal? The indictment charges the plaintiff in error, and others, being white persons, with the offence of "residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a licence," and "without having taken the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the State of Georgia." The defendant in the State Court appeared in proper person, and filed the following plea: "And the said Samuel A. Worcester, in his own proper person, comes and says, that this court ought not to take further cognizance of the action and prosecution aforesaid, because, he says, that, on the 15th day of July, in the year 1831, he was, and still is, a resident in the Cherokee nation; and that the said supposed crime or crimes, and each of them, were committed, if committed at all, at the town of New Echota, in the said Cherokee nation, out of the jurisdiction of this court, and not in the county Gwinnett, or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this court: And this defendant saith, that he is a citizen of the State of Vermont, one of the United States of America, and that he entered the aforesaid Cherokee nation in the capacity of a duly authorized missionary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32  
33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   >>  



Top keywords:

Cherokee

 
nation
 

record

 

authenticated

 

practice

 

jurisdiction

 
action
 

indictment

 

committed

 

aforesaid


Maryland

 

proper

 

defendant

 
person
 
return
 

exception

 

residing

 

support

 

offence

 

licence


limits
 

Samuel

 
appeared
 

cognizance

 
Worcester
 
constitution
 

Georgia

 

defend

 

United

 
States

America
 
Vermont
 
citizen
 
Gwinnett
 

entered

 

capacity

 

Commissioners

 

Foreign

 

Missions

 
American

authorized

 

missionary

 

county

 
resident
 

supposed

 

Echota

 

crimes

 
prosecution
 

required

 

sanction