Difference between revisions of ".MTUyOQ.MTUxOTA"
Johnbarden (talk | contribs) m (Protected ".MTUyOQ.MTUxOTA" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
228 | 228 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Representatives, was read 1st 2d & 3d time & passage to be engrossed refused. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [notice - ] | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mr McCobb gave notice that he should move a reconsideration of the last vote at 4 oclock this afternoon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [James M Rogers case] | ||
+ | |||
+ | [investigation &c] | ||
+ | |||
+ | The time having arrived which was assigned for the consideration of the alleged causes for the removal of James M Rogers from all the offices he holds under the authority of this State, the House took up the subject and voted to proceed. The speaker then enquired if Mr Rogers or his Council were present, whereupon Thomas A Deblois Esquire informed the House that he appeared as Counsel for Mr Rogers. The Speaker then read the Address & also the causes &c &c reported by the joint committee. Mr Deblois then moved for a postponement of the subject to the next Legislature and offered his reasons at large why his motion should prevail. Mr Todd, one of the managers on the part of the House, made a brief reply. The question "shall the subject be postponed to the next Legislature" was then put to the House by the Speaker & decided in the negative 27 pro. 71 con. on motion, it was then ordered, by the House, that enquiry be made of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court whether the Court have decided upon the motion submitted by James M Rogers for a new trial on the indictment against for passing counterfeit money &c &c, and if so whether the verdict is supported or set aside - The House then, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Adjourned to meet again at three oclock this afternoon. |
Latest revision as of 16:27, 13 July 2020
228
Representatives, was read 1st 2d & 3d time & passage to be engrossed refused.
[notice - ]
Mr McCobb gave notice that he should move a reconsideration of the last vote at 4 oclock this afternoon.
[James M Rogers case]
[investigation &c]
The time having arrived which was assigned for the consideration of the alleged causes for the removal of James M Rogers from all the offices he holds under the authority of this State, the House took up the subject and voted to proceed. The speaker then enquired if Mr Rogers or his Council were present, whereupon Thomas A Deblois Esquire informed the House that he appeared as Counsel for Mr Rogers. The Speaker then read the Address & also the causes &c &c reported by the joint committee. Mr Deblois then moved for a postponement of the subject to the next Legislature and offered his reasons at large why his motion should prevail. Mr Todd, one of the managers on the part of the House, made a brief reply. The question "shall the subject be postponed to the next Legislature" was then put to the House by the Speaker & decided in the negative 27 pro. 71 con. on motion, it was then ordered, by the House, that enquiry be made of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court whether the Court have decided upon the motion submitted by James M Rogers for a new trial on the indictment against for passing counterfeit money &c &c, and if so whether the verdict is supported or set aside - The House then,
Adjourned to meet again at three oclock this afternoon.