*1 691 office as a Monitor. The sole contention now is that the motion was denied with- argument, appellant out oral which had requested says and which he was re- quired by 9(b) Rule of the General Rules of the United States Court for District Columbia, the District of set forth in margin.1 the opposition But no to the filed, motion in such circum- was and clearly stances the Rule does not at all require argument. oral The must court interpre- be allowed in some latitude the Although tation of its own Rules. the court under Rule could have treated the conceded, the motion as Rule did not the require it to do so. Affirmed. Washington, Rolnick, D.
Mr. Robert appellant. C., on brief submitted the for Washington, Raymond Dickey, R. D. Mr. SMITH, Appellant, William appellant. C., for brief was on the v. Schmidt, Godfrey New York P. Mr. America, UNITED STATES of se, City, pro on his brief. submitted Appellee. Edgerton, Miller Before Wilbur K. 14867. No. Judges. Faiiy, Circuit and Appeals United States Court of of District Columbia Circuit. PER CURIAM. 24, Argued April 1959. appeal fromis an of The order 4, Decided June 1959. by denying a Court motion the District origi Cunningham, of appellant one the Rehearing En Banc Petition for Denied pending, 23, plaintiffs in there an action nal June 1959. Godfrey petition have file a to for to leave Schmidt, court-appointed one of the P. action, render an in the ac Monitors counting, suspension from and for his 9(b): similarly points Rule be 1. and authorities shall days filed, motion there be filed each shall within “With noted and served five separate paper stating may a the and served or such further time as the court points agree specific grant parties upon. law and to of authorities the or If not prescribed support the motion. Such statement the filed within time court the may to a statement of additional the motion shall be treat as If conceded. grounds itself, motion and in the shall be filed the motion shall be treated so as judge the docket but shall not be a entered on unless the submitted directs or moving party party requests part hearing, The of the record. an either oral the motion and the fact shall enter of ten minutes will for which be allowed provided filing the statement on a card each side.” by opposing A of the clerk. statement *2 692 ably presented appellant’s
counsel con- tentions.
Appeal dismissed. Judge BAZELON, (dissent- Circuit ing). judgment I would affirm convic- the of tion. join I not do the this in dismissal of Judge, dissented.
Bazelon, Circuit appeal I not think divi because the do granted sion of this which leave to court appeal pauperis improvi in forma acted determining dently question in that a presented plainly was which was not meaning frivolous within of Ellis v. the States, 1958, 674, United 356 78 U.S. 974, Young 2 S.Ct. 1060. v. L.Ed.2d Cf. States, - U.S.App.D.C. -, United 267 Washington, Hirsch, B. Mr. Robert 692, my F.2d and statement in Jones v. Court) ap- by C., (appointed this for D. States, - U.S.App.D.C. -, United 266 pellant. 924. F.2d Spielberg, U. S. Asst. Mr. J. Paul Appeals Atty., of ofBar Court of the the vice, by special York, pro hac of New Court, Messrs. Oliv- with leave of whom Atty., Bel- Gasch, and Carl
er U. W. S. brief, cher, Atty., on the S. were Asst. U. appellee.
for Judge, Chief Prettyman, and Before Judges. Burger, Circuit
Bazelon and YOUNG, Appellant, PER CURIAM. Frank appeal for v. from conviction This is an dangerous weapon, ra- a America, a assault with UNITED STATES of fight Appellee. the zor, of a with course the in grounds complaining for witness. The No. 14288. jury (1) was not appeal that the are Appeals Court of United States charged specifically intent to commit that District of Columbia Circuit. an injury razor was essential the with (no request for Argued 2, the crime1 element of March 1959. charge made); (2) specific was and such 4, Decided June 1959. argument government’s the to the that improper. jury prejudicially We was and conclude the record examined have im- appeal dismissed as should be
the granted. appointed providently Court making employs an assault an in- charge: such 1. The strumentality capable causing attempt that is “Now, of or an offer an assault is bodily grave bodily to the by person harm other if used harm to to an- do one Now, making they carry ability an the other, in assault. are to that offer the with the here attempt of offense involved.” elements into effect. or appellant expressed “Now, counsel for an Trial assault that assault becomes charge. person dangerous weapon with the satisfaction if the with a