37G 



FLORIDA. 



he alone may judorc of the manner in which lie will 

 perform them, and the judicial department may de- 

 termine the effect; of acts performed. 

 Alternative writ dismissed. 



Whether the issuing of a second certificate 

 by Governor Drew might have operated as a 

 revocation of the first does not appear to be 

 decided ; but in the case of a commission issued 

 to a person on a partial canvass of votes, the 

 commission can only be vacated by an appeal 

 to the courts. This was setted in Missouri, 

 where the Secretary of State, in a canvass of 

 votes cast for Judge, had refused to open and 

 count the returns from two counties, and had 

 certified the result to the Governor, who issued 

 the commission on this partial canvass. An 

 application was made by Congressman Bland 

 to the Supreme Court of that State for a man- 

 damus to compel the Secretary to open and 

 canvass the returns from the two counties, 

 whose votes, if counted, would have elected 

 him instead of the other candidate. The Court 

 held that, though the Secretary of State had no 

 right to refuse to open and canvass the returns 

 from the two counties, nevertheless, as the com- 

 mission had already been issued, it would not 

 direct him to do so. The Court said : " Tho 

 officer derives his title to the office by virtue of 

 his election, and the commission is prima facie 

 evidence only. The case has passed beyond the 

 control of this Court, and the only redress the 

 relator has, if he considers himself aggrieved, 

 is by legal contest made in pursuance of law." 

 This question of a contested seat came Tip in 

 the House of Representatives in Washington on 

 December 18th, and it was given to Noble A. 

 Hull yeas 140, nays 136. 



Many resolutions were presented in the Le- 

 gislature to provide for the assembling of a 

 State Constitutional Convention. These were 

 referred to a joint committee of both Houses, 

 who agreed upon a report recommending some 

 less important changes. 



Three important bills relating to railroads 

 were presented on the same day in each House. 

 The first would have aided in the construction 

 of new roads, and under the others all neces- 

 sary steps would be taken to bring the existing 

 roads to account and to enforce the penalties 

 they may have incurred. 



A complicated case of railroad litigation was 

 decided in the United States Circuit Court 

 by Justice Bradley. The parties were the 

 Western North Carolina Railroad against the 

 Florida Central, and the Jacksonville, Pensaco- 

 la, and Mobile Railroad Company, and others; 

 also the case of J. Fred. Shuette and others 

 against the same defendants. The cases were 

 tried together. These suits were founded upon 

 claims against the defendants. The effect of 

 the decision was to award to the parties inter- 

 ested their rank as claimants and the amounts 

 to which tliey were entitled. The roads were 

 ordered to be sold, and as a result of the sale 

 the formation of a new organization was an- 

 ticipated. 



A requisition from the Governor of North 

 Carolina upon the Governor of Florida for the 

 delivery of a person indicted in the former 

 State for "obtaining money under false pre- 

 tenses " was not granted by the latter Govern- 

 or. Upon being arrested, the party sued out 

 a writ of habeas corpus. After a hearing, the 

 Judge made an order discharging him from 

 arrest, holding that there was a variance be- 

 tween the charge named in the requisition and 

 warrant and that specified in the indictment ; 

 and, also, that he was not a fugitive from jus- 

 tice within the meaning of the Constitution 

 and statutes of the United States. 



The power of the judiciary to review the 

 action of the Governor in such cases is recog- 

 nized by some courts, at least to the extent of 

 deciding whether the party is a fugitive from 

 justice. (Jones vs. Leonard, decided in the 

 Supreme Court of Iowa, December term, 1878, 

 page 112 of "Albany Law Journal" of Febru- 

 ary 18, 1879 ; in the matter of Manchester, 5 

 Cal., 237.) In this case there was a judicial 

 determination of the question of his being a 

 fugitive from justice, and the Governor de- 

 clined to assume that the judicial decision was 

 erroneous. 



An action of ejectment brought to recover 

 possession of two lots of land in St. John's 

 County was taken to the United States Su- 

 preme Court. It was entitled George Burt, 

 plaintiff in error, against Maria M. Ponjoud, 

 Among the errors assigned was a ruling of the 

 lower Court to the effect that a certain Henry 

 Holmes, called to be a juror in this case, was 

 not obliged to answer any questions touching 

 his qualifications as a juror, under section 820 

 of the Revised Statutes. Under this ruling 

 Holmes declined to say whether he did or did 

 not participate in the rebellion. He was chal- 

 lenged on the ground that lie was disqualified 

 under the aforesaid section of the Revised 

 Statutes, and the Court overruled the chal- 

 lenge. Upon this point the Supreme Court 

 held that a juror was no more obliged than a 

 witness to disclose on oath his guilt of any 

 crime, or of any act which would render him 

 infamous, in order to test his qualifications as 

 a juror. The question asked him, if answered 

 in the affirmative, would have convicted him 

 of the crime of treason. Whether pardoned 

 by a general amnesty or not, the crime was 

 one which, in the opinion of the Court, he 

 could not be required to disclose in this man- 

 ner. If he were guilty, the challenger had the 

 right to prove it by any other competent testi- 

 mony. As he did not offer to do this, and as 

 the juror's incompetency was not proved, the 

 Court was not bound to exclude him. As to 

 the ownership of the lots, this Court held that 

 there was sufficient evidence of defendant in 

 error's prior possession, and that she was enti- 

 tled to them both. Mr. Justice Miller deliv- 

 ered the opinion. 



Mr. Justice Field delivered a separate con- 

 curring opinion with regard to the test-oath 



