Pallard v. Du?ht, 4 Cr?n?h? 421; Barry v. Fw/ar, I Pet. 311." 'In Ez ? '?, ? U. 8. ?, ?, ?. ? J? "? ? of ? p? ?e p? w? a ?n my ? ? ? not one'?t? ?e ?ne? ? '?c?on of t? ?. It ? m?er ? ?e ? of a ? exemp?on ? favor of a def?t, ? it h o? w?h ? ?y w?ve. If ?e ?g?m?p of ? ? ? ?fficient, s defen?t my w?nt ? ? ? ?h? ? ply, ? ?inly j? &?on ? not ? o? ? he ? ?n?." ' ? F?st N? B? o/C?r? v. M?an, 1? U.S. 141, 1?, ?. J? ? th? ?fe? ?'a ? qu?on: "? exemp?on of ?o? ?nking ?o? from ? ? ? ?, m?b?h? e?whe? t? ? ?e ?ty or dry ? w?eh tach ?tio? were 1?, w?, we do not doubt, .p?fi? for the ?nvenien? of th? ?titutiom, ? ? prevent m?p?on ? their b? t?t ?t ? ?t from ?e? ? ? ?t ? d?t ?ti? in o? dien? ? p? .... If it (the exemption)? ?n '. e?m? by the defender when ap? ? the Su?dor ? of ?eve?d ?y, it m?t ?ve ?n ?i?. ? defender did not, however, eh?e ? c?m imm?ity from s?t ? t?t ?. It ?c defe? u?n the mede, ?, ?ng ?n ?ful, pr?ecu? a ?t of e?r ? the Sup?me ?u? of the S?, ?d in the ?t?r t?bun?, for the ?t time, cl?m? the immunity ?n? ? it by ?n?. ? w? ? la?. We are of opi?on t?t i? exem? ?on from ? in other ?u? of the ?me S? wa4 a pe? pd?lege that it ?d waive, and which, in t? ?e, the de- fend?t did waive, by apdaring and ?ng defe? without clai? the immu?ty ?antc?l by Con?." In M?k Ha?sti? Machi? C?ny v. Wd?s, 134 U.S. 41, 43, Mr. Chicf J?tice Fuller, quot? .the pr? v?io? of ? 1 of the ?t of 1?, ?id: "?e j?ic?on common ? all Civet ?u? of the Uni-
�
