|
|
|
are enumerated, and it is not pretended that a case of this
character is within any of the designated classes. After
an election is accomplished, parties claiming office under
it or against, may, if the asserted illegality of the elec-
tion depends on legal grounds, contest the question by
mandamus; but it is not within the power of any court,
by injunction or by mandamus, to arrest the progress of
an election directed by the legislative department, by de-
ciding in advance questions connected with the alleged il-
legality or irregularity of the election as stated, express-
ing their opinions as to the expediency of a Constitutional
Convention.
"It is, therefore, on this 2d day of April, 1867, ordered
and decreed by the Superior Court of Baltimore City, as
court of equity, that the application for an injunction
in the above case be rejected, and the bill dismissed with
costs.
"R. N. MARTIN. "
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.
A notice of appeal was entered the following day, and
on Thursday, April 4, Mr. Rogers went to Annapolis to
file the papers. The court ordered the matter to be set
down for the following Monday, April 8th, which was two
days before the day of election. On April 8, in the Court
of Appeals Alexander M. Rogers, Esq., appeared for the
complainants, and George William Brown and Orville Hor-
witz, Esqs., for the respondents—(Mr. Wallis's profes-
sional engagements in the Supreme Court having detained
him at Washington. )
Upon the calling of the case the court (Chief Justice
Bowie) suggested that the answer of respondents having
been filed, it was necessary to inquire whether the appeal
could be heard at the present term, or whether it should
go over to the next term of the court. The question was
argued at length by the counsel on both sides, after which
the Chief Justice inquired of the clerk of the court wheth-
er the certificate had been sent up by the clerk of the Su-
perior Court. On looking at it the Chief Justice said that
it appeared that the answers in this case were filed on the
1st of April and the order refusing the injunction was
24
|
|
|
|
 |
