THE UNITED STATES vs. HUYCK

THE UNITED STATES vs. HUYCK. An appeal does not lie to this Court from an order of the Criminal Court overruling a motion to quash an indictment. Such an order is interlocutory only. Criminal Docket No. 4681. Decided November 4, 1868. Statement oe the Case and Decision. Indictment for grand larceny. The defendant challenged the array of grand jurors and moved to quash the indictment. The motion was overruled, whereupon an appeal was taken to this Court. When the argument of the case was begun, Mr. Justice Olin said as the case came to the General Term, not on a final judgment or decree, but upon exceptions to'the ruling of the Court below upon an interlocutory question as to the constitution of the grand jury, he was doubtful whether the case was properly before the Court. Whereupon all the jústices concurred that the order in question was merely interlocutory, and was unappealable. [MAJORITY — Me. Justice Wylie also said:] Me. Justice Wylie also said: The act of 1863 organizing the Supreme Court provides means of appeal from the Circuit Court and from the Special' Term to the General Term, but is silent as to appeals from the District Court or the Criminal Court. The act of 1838 must, therefore, be resorted to in order to ascertain the method by which appeals from those courts may be taken. It appears by that act that the old Circuit Court was the appellate Court to the Criminal and the District Courts, and that to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia was transferred all the jurisdiction of the old Circuit Court. Hence, appeals from the Criminal Court must come here under the act of 1838, and not under that of 1863. The act of 1838 furnishes the rule governing such appeals, and that act provided that the Circuit Court should have power to award a writ of error in any criminal case whatever, wherein final judgment had been pronounced by the Criminal Court convicting any person of any crime or misdemeanor. The rule of this Court allows appeals to be taken wherever a writ of error will lie, but in all other respects the act of 1838 is the law of this case. Messes. E. C. Carrington and N. Wilson for the United States. Messrs. W. D. Davidge and A. Gr. Riddle, for the defendant. Appeal dismissed.