The New York Herald Newspaper, June 16, 1875, Page 13

2 NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1875.—QUADRUPLE SHEET. Bs Roe ae ” - —_——_——- rd} wainst Tweed, ahd Added that no doubt Mr, | tion was admitted, the court holding that, the record | Den., 295), dectdes that on the trial of an indictment for | record. Tt woald be difficult to deduce from tne Sfinion | doubtful experiments dy courts of onion, any tocan HF | twee would revetve the attention of the District | could not be imnenched on habeas corpus. The general liquor without license the prosecutoriean only give | collectively or that of any single judge that when the | or any extent. From some expre of judges a Attorney's omice 10 due time, Further MrvLpons | Principle snescne want gf Juriatizdon appearing UB | frie inchetmene The aie camnaiae Gee catite | Badtanew tue afctedon of the curtail Routieton | the fies that soveral stack otenees sould be. triad ‘a6 ot could not gay. Questioned.” (in Kew 16 ©. B., 97.) and ona general verdict of guilty, a fine. «single pus: | ishad ander an indictment consisting ot several, cou the saufe we; but there was no Teal of true warrant im a It was rumored last evening that Charley Dev- | yer (sayer, 44) was a habeas corpus for the ishment wasimposed. But for the error in the ad- | of several offences, distinct and distributive senten this state for several and di lin and several others bad offered to go bail for | persons in execution under a judgment which Mission of evidence the conviction was reversed, The | could be imposed for tne different convictions under tae | single indictment d for that Frege ale ortain, however tune ac beech | as Coutat Quarter Seaatna Wad fuslotauon ofthe | pleve Gates is WR cai) wr ane Balen Warrant’ for forgery has been. issued ‘against | offence and ot the persons of the accused. but ihe juag- ta fh i ature df one John Ludiow to a Decision of the Court of Ap-| Wiliam m, Tweea, “and ‘thar it will be | Ment upon an, indletment tor any aseanih wae apricot | Petae charged fa wideent tens served on him to-day, or the Deputy Sheriff | upon their knees of the prosecutor, and cause a: eals in: the Case. McGonigal has the other alternative o! serving the | count of the sentence to be printed im the Daily aa Be) oo order of arrest in the civil suits first. ‘The | ¢/ser, and not to be discharged out of prison until 1! ween the two counts, that that order of arrest and bencn warrant cannot be | Judgment had been fully performed. The judgment w: Ciacration of the Court of Ger . gerved at once, and it seems curious | Held llezal. except the imprisonment, and tha defend. | generally that a dotendant 1 enough ‘that the ‘bench warrant is not | ats Were discharged and wero uot put to their writ of | time tor aifferent offences charged in the ‘There was clearly wo excessive punishinent | sult, not merely {a determining the extent of the pu 7 ss a same grade o hich might have been inflicted upon a single | Ishuient of the particular prisoner naw beiore us, = re ee Mi BEe they dutacttee at he: etter | eee ment if the offences are of th i it whi ht have been inflicted fe | ish le particu! bet ‘but TW EED TO BE RE LEASED. fo be served by ve: e Distric in Crepps vs. Durden @ Gowp., 6401, in an action of | to the same punishment. conviction under any one of the counts. It may be con. | either fn establishing in this State a role of procedure tn L 4 OLE, | Attorney's office, who are usually detatied to per- | trespass, a conviction by a justice or the peace for more Thave thus and at a greater length than would ordl- oded that expressions used by some of the Judges | crimival cases which will most materially affect every {orm such duties. It was, however, stated yester- | than one ponalty tor oxercising the ordivary calling of | narily be deemed necessary, referred io the soveral cases | authorizing an inference that th* punishment in the ag- | individual who may be hereatter charged with offences day afternoon that Detectives Field and Conners, | & Party on runday for the same day was held yoid by | cited from our own reports, and it will be seon that no veral counts might be in excess ot that jay afternoon , day for th held void ited fi ts, and it will b : e is daments net judemen: upon s Peo- | respective counts, which would aggregate a punishment | prisoner should have been discharged upon thé expir: t for ob- | in @xcess of that preseribed and limited by statute for @ tps of the tmprisonment fer ons ye nd the payment ‘i single offence: that is, that tne several punishments @ fine of ¢ judgment and orders ot the combined could be in excess of that whi ould, pi Supreme Court and of the Oyer and Terminer must be nt to statute, beimpused upon @ couviction under | reversed and the prisoner discharged. any one of the counts. . TWEED VS. LISCOMB. TAM REAL QUESTION Tho People ex rel. Wiillam M. Tweed, plaintiff in considered, in respect to which these opinions must be | error, va. Joseph L. Liscomb, detendant in error—Judge read and interpreted, was whether the verdict and judg- | Rapallo.—The question submitted to us in this case ts of ‘Ould be applied to the good. counts. aud thus us. | more than ordtuary Importance, ‘Its decision will. ra- a ‘The Court merely say in answer to t cutor should have been mi of # grade inferior to felony, or in rejecting the ru eomiens " o reason of the exees# of jurisdiction, and the action | warrant can be tound in any of them or in any re: in the discretion of the Court, not which | claimed by the prosecation not founded 1n sound | Se Dee AG Cale oh ae et Was sustained, although the convictions were not | casual or otherwise by any jude for uinulative pun could by Law: bo Inilieted upou a siizle conht or for & | principles or eanaisient With ‘our spstern ot orimin . j * rie 4 BKe, quashed. The "jurisdiction oF agistra convict | met conv eral offences charged in | siuglo offence. ut it is not so seid in term urisprudence. For this occasion we have perni an Dissertation on the Writ of | would arrest nim in case that bail was ofered and | and punish for one ollence was not questioned. Lut the a single indictment the aggregate punisumontexceed- | and certainty ts uot and could” not have heen | Unuegalty cxionded dis ussion of the question at our accepted in the civil su! Court adjuaged that he bad no jurisdiction whatever in | ing chat prescribed by inw forthe grade of offences | so decided aud the judges were not called upon to and | Bar, during whieh we have beard the views of eminont Tlabeas Corpus Deputy Sherif! McGonigal remained on Klack- | respect of tho three !ast convictions for the reason that | charged. The rule as ciaimed by implication | did not answer any iuierrogatory which would resolve | counsel on both sides, and it may be assumed trom the e 7a JOrpus. well’s Island last night, and will be reay 0 obey | there oon a enone cles, anapenS punishment for calle LF tego ntsle, judement for | all 4 8, that apestlon, 1 the rule prevails, ag clatined in sup: | great research displayed in their Brief that we have 4 : he acts o! Yi 3 People vs. Cassots (6 Hill, | of e ictment, and of | port of the judgmont, it may and must have effect tn al been furnished with the authorities in this ATL x Whatever instructions may be sent tohim. He | is ‘the Court, by Bronson, ‘t is convicted, It requires that the | courts of criminal Pina ction, whether generalor Jim- | Ensland and in the several States of the Union, which, Says that the prisoner | which tlie accuse aurea’ sent the foilowing despatch yesterday noow tO | had an undoubted right, when brought belore the Com offences joined shall be of the same gradg and be subject | ited, and a U y ; ‘ m1 4 ra Yom. : 5 Lourt of Hpeclal Sessions bold by a single jus | in their judgment, at least, could throw light tipon tho : ,, | Major Gurney :— Inissoner on habeas ectpus to show that che commuting | fo the sane puniahnent—that Js, not only Duntsnuent | tee ot the pease, me ery me iedieidnal for ans mamtcr | eubloct We'lave also retained the case Hater advise: SHE TICHBORNE CASE NOT A PRECEDEN I can't tell when Tweed .will be discharged, Witt | M#eisttate acted without authority, notwithstanding | the samo in kind, but the same in degree, This can ouly | of misdemeanors of the same grade of which the Court | ment more than the usual time, during which we bave J bs have to stay here ail night tonwalt the Giscuarge papers | te commitment recitos the necessary facts to give juris- | be important to the ond that « single judgment, equally | has cognizance, at the same tine and upon aginglo com. | given a careful consideration to the authorities ited. from Albatiy. MOGORIGAL, | diction; that no court or officer can acquire jurisdiction | applicable to each of the offences, may cover all, anda | plaint, and upon a conviction hnpose successive and | It isnot my purpose now to review these authoritie: by the ae Rereeeon of tt. Uno pears beers Lorilee the pe pum vals = ey be Wey | end gum ane Rog cor 3 of imprisonment and fine | Such of upon authority. the court or magistrate having juris- | posed for each, It several judgments may. ver 0 the full exten the law {i - | ment have bi iH ct lyzed. THE DECISION. Epon atthe pourt: OF. IBAEIREREE, having p a ° aw for each ol | in @ been reterred to and analy must | upon a single indictment upon a conviction for several | fence. For the rule, if it exists, does not grow | opinion of my brother, Judge Al ropose simply r faye the order waive, ‘omect’ to” the | disconnected offences and the punishmenty may be suc- | outof the character of the Court bne ina. tact ofthe | tomate the tendiim foasn fu.l reflection Tweed To Bo Rearrested on Civil and | ue sortowing is tae fui text of the decision as | have ts a into the. jurisdiction. of the | cessive and cumulative, there. is no good reason why | law of the juud cf general appli Tt would follow | Upon. the sublect, I deem ‘controlling, and. which rendered yestorday in the cage of Wultam M, | court to give the jndgment or ‘decree oF issue the _ the offences joined should be of the same grade or sub- | what upon the result of a single trial w jastice of Getermine me ‘to concur in bis’ conclusions. Criminal Precess Tweed. process by which the person is deprived of his liberty. fect to the sano punishment, for the Court might 49 | peace, sitting asa Court of Special Xegslonis, may mul In the decision of #0 | grave jth . SS. i . nm so doing he but inquires if he is deprived of his ub- | impose the sentences tor the respective offences that | the convicted party in separate penalties of $25 exch to | the consideration whether the punishmout In thoCoust of Avpeals~The People ox rol. William | erty “by due Process of jaw" or the judgment of acourt | each could be fully carried out without interfering | the extent of Mix property aud imprison hun trom sx | freted. in teis particular. case ia moro or less than wi M. Tweed, plaintit a prisoner ix held | with the others. A prisoner convicted of soveral ilsde- | months to six months, ad libitum. justly merited has no legitimate place. Lt 1s the pro yendant In errot; Vayid Dudley Field, George F, Com. under a judgment of a court made without autnority of | meanors, tor which ona rens peaelies were prescrived, Regina vs. Cutbuash (10 ¢ Cas., 49) is adverse to | ince of courts to declare the law ag they find tt to by stock and W. O, Bartlett for relator; 8. K. Phelps, DL Jaw, the proper tribunal will upon habeas corpus look | might be flogged for one, fined for a second and impris- | this logical seauence of ti claimed in sapport of | and adjudge cases accordingly; not to change or strain q MHI 'E MIL LIONS BAIL. DEM AND ED. trict Attornéy, for New York, and W. H, Peckham tor de- | into the record so far ns to,ascertain t 4 fact, and, it it | oned for @ third if the doctrine contended for by the | the convictions in the case before us One Paine waa | the law toimake it fit any particular . The main THREE MOL NS BALL DEMANDED, | tendautin error: Alien, Justice, be found (o bs so, will discharge the prisoner. (cx parte | prosecution can be :maintained. ‘The qualification | convicted under tho Vagrant act ( Goo.,4C., 38 upon | question now presented for decision is whether several The question of gravest, importance which is to be | Lange, 18 Wallace, 1s) ‘Phe Gourt aay it sno answer | of the rule that {he joluied offeuces must be equal in the | four separate Informations, and sentenvod upon three of and distinct offences, each amonnting to eee consiiered In liming. is that upou which the jurisdiction | tosay thar the Court had jurisdiction, Of the person ot | Jaw. subject to the sane panisiiment, lias to foundation | the convichous to be’ Imprisoned at hard. labor nor, upon which an indictment coald by r Of the Court to consider the other questions presented | tb» prisoner and of the ofience underthe statuie, Itby | in principle and must tall. If, as has beon done in some | for three calendar months, and upon the fourth con- | framed, may be charged in one indictmont in separate eponds, relates to the office and effect of the writ or | NO means follows that there two facts make valid, how- | cases, the maximum punishment which the law permits | Viction to a like mnprisonment to commence at the | counts and tho prisoner put on his trial, for all the How the News Was Received in | habeas corpus under our system of jurisprutence ani | ever erroneous itinay be, any Judgment the Court may | for the grade aod character of offence charged is dis- | expiration of the first three calendar months’ imprison- | alleged offences, at the same time belore the sami the statutes of the States regulating proceedings unter | render im such case, tributed among tRe several offences of which the pris. |/meat. Upon an application of a writot habeas corpus | jury, and im case the jury revder a general the Cit it. Reliet trom iliegal imprisoument ‘by menne of tls A CASH IN POENT, oner is convicted, according to the demerits of each, the | ona rate to show cause, the cumulative sentences were | verdict of guilty on ail the ‘counts, or a verdict @ City. Femedial writ is not the creature of any statute. Ihe | | In Bigelow vs. Forrest 9 Wallace, $20 a judgment was | aggregate punishment not belng in excoss of that al- | sustained upon what Lord Cockburn, ©. J., terms “by | of guilty, of various specified counts, whether listory, of {he Court is lost” in antiquity. 1c | Reid void because in excess of that which by Iaw the | lowed by law for a single offence ot the same | some degree of technigal straining” of the words ola | the court has power to pronounce & separate a was in “use before Magna” Charta, and came | Gort had powor to make; in the language of Judge | Kind and degree, there would probably be nothing | statute. (Ul and 12 Viet O., 43) But for the statute the | s8atence on each count upon wiiich the prisoner 18 a = tous as a part of our inlieritance froin | Miller (18 Wallace, supra) :—"In a case where the Court | filegal, conceding that a person accused of crime may be | prisoner woul © beep discharged for the invalidity | found guilty, and thus aggregate sontences on a singls Once again the citizens of New York have an | the mother counlry and exists asa part ot the common | had full jurisdiction to ronder one kind of judgment | tried upon one indictment for several aud distinct | of the convictions ana sentences, This is very goot | indictment and trial to an extent rar in excess of the tunity of reopening and discussing the | {aw of the State. [tis intended and woil adapted to ot- | Operating, upon the same property, it rendered one | offences committed at different times. eminent counsel | evidence that the common law ag administered in | maximum punisiment proscribed by statute for the oppertunity Pt e es fect the great object secured m Kngland by Magna | Wich included that which it had a right to render and | claim with great plausibility and show ot reason that nglant 3 Not authorize several convictions | grade ot offence tor which the prisoner has been ins Tweed case in all its bearings, for the newS | @harta,.and made 4 part of our constitution, thatno | Something more, and this excess was held simply void. | the rule permitting the trial of a peraon tor several | ani mulative sentences as in the present | dictedandtried, The bare quesion suggests to every day to the city to the effect th person Shall be deprived of his liberty “without due | 1 seo 0 pe trom the conclusion-that the inFiadietion | oflences at the same thine is not authoritatively estab- | cago and that the party illegally, imprisoned | mind accustomed to reflect, upon such subjects the eno which came yesterday to the city to the effect that | Drocess of law.!’ (Constitution, article 1, section 6,) | ot the ‘tot Over and Terminer, to give the judgment | lished, and that it ought not tobe. Icannot do better | under sentences unauthorized by law cau haye relief by | mousinjustice and oppression which might result fro! William M, Tweed hed been discharged by order Wa never the virtue and applicability of the writ have | or judgments wh. ppear upon the record réturned to | than to quote liberally frou Rhaveas corpus. Congress bas thought it necessary to | the aloption of the rule which an affirmative answe 4 ~ bern attacked or impugned it has been defended and | this Court, and riue of which the relator 1s held, THK DRILF OF MR. O'CONOR, provide by statute tor the joinder of several to this quostion would establish, and discloses how ef- of the Court cf Appeals created a gentune sensa- | its rigor and eMciency reasserted as the great bulwark | W88 A proper st of inquiry upon the return of the | before referred to, and adopt bis language, for the rea. | against the same person, for the same act or tri fectually such & rule of procedure would obliterate tion in the metropolis, Jt was stated | of liberiy. ‘the statutes which have ben Dassed in King. | writ of Ic was the only fact which, the | you that ho very clearly urd torsely expresses the. post; | or for two or more acts or transactions of the ny ‘ot the most valuable safeguards which ‘ . land from the time of Charios (1, (i Car, 2, 0. 2), and in | Prisoner could a ver errors the Court | tion and the arguments in sappert of itand which [ | of crimes or oflences in one indictmontin several counts, | (he law has thrown around the trial of per- shat the Court of Appeals has reversed the de- | this State from the time ot itéorganization, have not | ™@y have com jor «to «6the = judg- | deem worthy of consideration. That eminent jurist, | but no provision is made for several judgments on of sons accused of crime. Laws are framed not merel ist {the lower or Supreme Court, in which | been intended to detract from Its foi tratherto | Ment, if the Court power to make | after reterritig to the analogy between civil actions tor | record. (No. 10, United States Siaiutes at Large, 162; | to secure punishment of those who are justly accuse cision of the P) . bud’ to ile emicioncy, and they have intended | the jadgment, they can onty be reviewed by writ of | penalties and criminal presecutions says:—"Aul accord- | United States Revised Statutes, Section 1,024.) We have | but to afford a fair trial to all and gnard against convi Judge Noah Davis had given tre judgment that | to prevent the writ being rendered inoperative | error. In other words, upon the writ of habeas corpus | ingly, except under some statute expressly authorizing | an authoritative exposition of the statute from Judge | tions being obtained through improper ans or in- ‘ w by. increasing. the. facilities for. procunag. it; | the Court could notgo behind the judgment, but upon | such a course. it has not been the practice to allow two | Nelson, late Associate Justice of the Suprome Court of | fluence. The law, therefore, furnishes, as tar a3 Do had made & twelve years convict ot William M. | Mia viug the class of officers having jurisdiction ia | the whole record tho question was whether the judg- | distinct offonces to be tried at the same time, either | the United States, a jndge ot long and varied experience | sible, to every defendant the Tweed, Later inthe afiernoon the dcetsion of | respect ofit; imposing penalties for retisal to grantit, | went was warranted by law and within the jurisdiction | by indictment or penal action. Brsides the con- | in the courts of this Staieand the United States, upon | cisely of what be Is accused, of securing an impartial pees mas were mostly relied upon op the arg Nerfor, vs, Joseph Le Liscomb, de- | of competent jurisdiction. Whi 5 jeans of Knowing pre- obey it and providing fora speedy return anda | Of fhe courts. This conclusion as to the potency and | fasion and embarrassment in which a trial at | the conviction of one Albro, in tl Cireuit Court of thé | jury and all reasonable opportunity for presenting his tue judges of the highest court of the State | Seer trial and ischerpe of the person it notheld | efifeiency ot the writ of habeas corpus to test the juris- | one time tor many offences would Involve the accused, | United States, tor sevoral distinct offences, united in a | defence, aod it prohibits the introduction agaist him was telegraphed in full and — every’ | Accoruing to the luwot tho land. (3 BL. Com., 180; ex | diction of every court in the land, assuining by ite Juig- | sucn a practice, if tolerated, would break down and | single indictznent, under tho act of Congraas raforred to. | of any evidence not bearing ypon the question of bis 8 parte Watkins, 2 Voters, 19%) The earlier si! t | ments, decrees and process to devrive the clizen of his | usterly obliterate many principles ot law that were not | The Court was moved in behalf of the government for guilt of the particular crime chatged, and carefully ex. detail of the rumor was confirmed, It wasim- | [hig stute did hot proiess todeal wita, or regulate the | liberty. and which is enturely consistent with the his- | only well establisned, but essential to the salety of tie SEPARATS SENTENCES Ciudes evidence which morely tenas to create prejudica x 7 ry diction over this writ which. exis tory, uses and sacredness of the writ and its connection | ottizen. Nothing is better setiled than that the evil re- | end distinct punishmonts for the several offences of | against him by showing that he tsa person of bad char- mediately asked by every person who met another | common tay jor en ov ay Ghuunesry bith with civH liberty and tree governinent, makes it neces. | putation of the accused shail uot be offered to strengthen | which the prisoner had peen convicted. ‘he Court hold. | acter or guilty of crimes other than that for person in the streets, the cars, the ferryboats or | respect only to the jurisdiction conferred by statute | Sry to consider the questions maee upon the record of | the proofs against him. That other inisdecds shall not | ing the application under artyisemont until the succeed- | which he is upon trial. The generally accepted and x Sit a st pen and exeretsod by judicial offcors out of court "The | ie convictions and jtkigments returned to us, Our ex. | be alleged, proved or attempted to be proven, is equally | ing term denied the application aud gaye x single judg~ |r ized principle is that a man shall be tried for only - the stages, “1s Tweed to be let out?” or “Are | EUV i.ed wtatuios regtilaie the exorcise of this jurisdiction | amivation will be conflved to that record. We snail | well known to the law. If the public prosocutor or a | mont as for one offence. It was held, Judge Nelson an- | one crime ata tino, and conyicted only upon ovidence they going to give him achance to escape?” Of | aswell, by courts ns magistrates, embracing uot only | Hot assim to go back of It for any purpose, | common informer in a penal action could putan unpop- | nouncing the result of the deliberation of Inimeselt aud | of the commission it that crime, and not upon proof of ‘. cases in’ vacation but in term ume. (2 R. 5., id., | for by itmust the jurisdiction as challenged ried’ |*uiar person on trial tor every delinquency imputed to | his associate, Judge Hall, that tho act did not change | other crimes, whieh show him to be a fit sutyject tor pan- course there were many deep and anx- | fuinonds Ld. Sil, Kev. dotes) This Writ cavnot | Bearihg in mind the distincyon between judgments | lim, by common fame such an ono (nowever | tue common law as itexisted in the State of New York | ishment. If itwere proposed at a Court of Sossions informal or erroneous ang thoso vod as without | Innocent) might often sink under tho weight | ana was administered by the United States courts sit- | Oyer and Terminer, at which a prisoner was arraigne its efficiency curtail 3 rou x tons sympathizers to be found, among | be abrogated or atin ihe reher atorged by ieat com. | jurisdiction, coram non jicice, the question is, had tho | of unmerited” opprobrium. The usage of einploy- | ting inthe State, and thatthe government was not to | for trial upon fifty ‘separate indictments for as , : r iiticlans in articular, who seemed ry rt, 1 the people voluntarily surrender | Court of Oyer and Teriainer the power to pronounce the | ing numerous counts to ward against pos | pronounce a judgment upon conviction of 4 | offences to try all the indictments at Che same time pe a Se pe Twoed. Was co be releaeed, | tae rite ia ths ihe erento of all weit py anemend: | several Judgments and indict siple variance between the allegation aud the prootis | prisoner, of” several offences ‘wader ono” ins | before the saine Jury, the common sense ot every Ia overjoyed to hear that Twee: ased, | ment ot the organic iaw. be placed beyond the reach of ‘THY ACCUMULATED PUNISHMENTS the sole cause of any misapprehension concerning tl dictment | containing distinct counts except fur | man as well as very lawyer would rovolt at the prop aud in nearly every lnstance it was noticed that | remedial action, Ihe privilege of the writ cannot be | UPON the conviction of the prisoner of the offences as | matter. whioh may app in re few Judiolal | a siugle offence. ‘his ts very satisiactory evidence, not | sition. And yet itis claimed that the sat result oa Ho Indictment? Whether iy was erro! ions. Because there m counts in an | only of the trae role of the Common law, but that the | be accompli: in cases of misdemeanors 0} even temporarily suspended except for the safety of the | charged in the s! opt tuose who wished to see Tweed free were loud tn | State in cases of reoellion or 1uva Gately ch the | ojo in the sameimdictiments counts for several dis- | fadictment or declaration, and face must bs | practice of iwposing cumulative sentences in such a | uniting all { in the same. indictment their denunciation of Tammany Hall and Jobn | article I, section 4.) The remedy agyinst iilegal impris- ltict offences, or whether the Court shonld bave com- | for a different offence, it has been hastily assumed that | case was unknown, and during the es Years of the | The evils are tha same in both casos pelind the prosecutor to elect between the several counts, | distinct and different transactions occarring at different | judicial lite of that eminent Judge. heyer known | Evidence ofeach misdemeanor would naturally preja- onment afforded by this writ as it was known and u Kelly. Mi Are bot questions that can be considered upot thishear- | times and places and consutating so many different | or hearu of the exercise of such a power. The case goes | dice the jury against the prisoner in determining upon . THE BALL OPENS. ee ace aay bd stechted wher padtic | ing, ‘They do not goto the Jaristiction of the Court, | offences may be given in evidence on the trial of an in- | far to. answer the argument in favor of cumulative sen- | the guilt of innocence ax to each of the others Evie eee Tee ae tee OF the te cinsrekncies | amd can omy come ‘up On error from the judg: |" dicument ona penal action, Tho teweasts that are to | tences derived trom the alleged practics of trylug sev- | dence which would be leyaily madmissible as to some ‘he Court had jurisdiction of the person | be found giving av apparent sanction to this notion are | eral distinct offences at the same time, as it shows that, | of them would be necessarily adinitted, i: compe nt, bo expressly authorized by | to some others The prisoner might himself bo oblige: {At an early hour’ the Snerif’a oMcs in the | Toinea in the constitution, ‘Thia provision ot the consti: | ment 5 } Of the accused and of a criminal offeuce committe! | noteumicrent to establish it. The learned counsel with | although such practi County Court House was visited by & | futon is a trans ie te imended inat. the framers | within the county of New York, and necessarily had fis | Hs sat me gana Vid disbriminatien toviows tne canes | statuter the power to infice curaulanive sentences dose | toimeroduce, evidence to exculpate himeelt froa some number of tho Tweed sympathizers, who | Sf, Havisnd Statutes by which the practice of the | Tsdiction to pass upon the foraiand sufficiency of thein- | 1 a no‘e to tho brief and shows that his position is not | not result and is not allowable. It is proper to state | of the charges which would have a bearing prejudicial 4 " $ Aictinent, ahd the ordor and cause of the trial, and decige | without foun atton, and I incline to coneur with himin | that we aro indebted to the District Attorney | to in (though perhaps illegitimately so) on the trial of wanted to know if ‘Tweed was — to | courts in term time was placed under the same rentiay | (very question that arose in its progress, and Whether the | opinion. His arguments appeat to mo unanswerable, | of ime United states” prosecuting tor the Toverg. | theothers The result at which the law aims or makin to be lot out at once or if he was to be rearrested | tor the officers upon whem power had been conferred fing weve rahe of the Court Beep ‘any or all of the gues: The practice of putting a man on trial for distinct | ment for a report of tnis case. In Massa- | each criminal charge depend upon its own morits wor ° wns Wore Mybt oF WORE, dit Hot aflect the Jurisdiction; | offences at the same time is fraught with dangor | chusetts thore is a similar statute, with the addi- | be trustrated if and held on any other charges, either of felony or | fram tinue to Mine by state exerdive of the juriadiction, | in other words the Court had atladintien te Geake crete | gorthe, aoguecc:- sud. can’ Sever be, Gone except | tonal provision that, successive convictions inay be THE RULE CLAIWED on process Of civil suits entered by the city to re- | or lessen the value, the eMciency or the importance of | 8 Well as right decisions in ali the stages of {he prosecu- | at great risk of doing injustice, Tholew is tender of the | nad and limiting the aggregate term of imprisonment | by the prosecution ts soumd. [t is equally applicable, as nf is the writ tiselt, which, in respect of the jurisdiction of | Won, and whether those made wero right or wrong can- | rights of those accused of crime to the extent of secur- | under any one indictinent (Statute of 1351, ch. Isl), | sated in tho opinion of my brother, Judge Alley to cover the enormous sums bf money stolen. Some cs hd Oourt of Onanes "7 not be raised on habeas corpus. This renders it unneces- | ing to them by every meansa fair and impartial trial | In England various statnies have becn enacted trot trials before inferior courts or magistrates upon com: the Supreme Court and Court of Chancery, was beyond ri ‘of tie visitors to the white marvle building in the | tue reach of legisiation, Bringing the procedure in | Sary to consider in much detail, or at all,exceptas | bya jury of the country and protecting them against a | time to time, which would not have been necessary hi plaints for petty offences for which they have juri te Re ea ee ees cacution Within the samo cou, | they may incidentally and ‘in the ‘vonsidera- | conviction under tho torms of law but without an ob: | the rule of the Commou law been as ciaiined by the | tion to impos only a khort term of imprinonmont, ff Park, whien is one of the monuments of his | eee eee auubt that the intent was thai | toa of the quostion actually presented, those | servance of and adherence to all the forms and rules of | learned counsel tor the prosecution. Without referfing | yast number of such offences can be united In one in- hi sl De every courtand officer having power to grant a writor | cases in whieh the question hos “been as to th law calculated to protect the innocent: bat if the prac- | to others it suffices to notice (ld and RYE eh. 4U,, 5.46), dietment and separately pu they can with equal dystom, did not go into the Sherifis | ore ocrpus abd to pase Upen propriety or uniting. forthe purposes of a trial, coveral | tice should be regarded so firmly established that ivcan. | which makes it Inwiui to insert several coats in thé | propriety be united in oue complaint and tried together, me person for any hum. | and the result would follow that am: id 7 offences in one indictment, and the daty of the Court to | not be reformed except by the Legislature the resul same indictment against the istrate or Cow Samer ub Waien = eines tee “Glee eenet has and mayex.rele in the form proscribed by Inw all | compel the prosecutor to elect when ‘unot omtences | 0 Airfnct judgments and eumuiaiive Sunichimengsdges | Rererdininos acts ot ptealion, uot excecding hice, that | of special Homions. to whom, the Logisiature hi his probable release, In all thefr discussions it A My Grecocharsed, in theary every conut in alt indiotment | hot tollow legally, logically or necessarily. Reference | may havo been committed by him against the sainé per- | signod the power of trying only such: offen are od at common law by the Court of for a distinct offence, but, in fact as i v = ‘1 be mace to the reported decisions in England, in | son within the spaco of six months, und to proceed | punishable by fine or imprisonment not exceeding one fare heveral coants ave Fesorted to woiigh itis claimed the foundation was laid hot oaly | thereon fur any or al of them. (See also Arotibald’s | Year, coulf upon a single trial sentence a prisoner for a norance of the Iaw as to how Tweed was to be | Doocovson tobe alarmed or to be (rightoued out of our | $nd the same offence stated in different ¢orms and with | for the jownder of several djslinct misdemeanors in ono | Gr. Pl. and Vr.. 162 ¢4.. pp. Of, 7,8; (eo, IV., p. 2, seo. 44.) | term exceeding the passane daramen, of ts lite. eis fer ‘1. { the ie expected to | propriety lest by reason of the hambor of magistrates to | diferent circumstances to weet the evidence thatimay | indictment, buttor cummisiive sentences or punishments; | Ono Foason assigned bythe dourts of England for per- | clear that the rule claimed is subject to very serious ob- bid spine aa? aps sempre aegis Por ds read ‘power hae been commited the jude. | Deadduced upon the trial, “The class of cases in whieh | butitie quite evident that there’ wonld probably be ng | mitting the joindor of distiuct misdemeanors, white itis | Jecrlons, nnd has Wile. ik anything. to recommend te see Tweed drive down to the courts In an open | ments of superior courts will be nullified and judicial | indictments of that character have come under review | precedent of cumulative punishments, each to the tt djsathor ney felony, is that upon a trial folony the | and could only bo mado usefa ¢ i be ng refally Drocecalnue roudered nugatory so far as they iiteriers | com(ain no posable boaring upou the qnestions before us | ineasure allowed by law as they werd Imposed in the | agctised lind the right of peremptory challenges, which | guarded by statutory rostriciian® Af ihe DRO prose barouche, distributing smilies and largesse a8 In | Wiener tat iiverty. ihe power has existed um many | 18 Mo event could there be in such casos but a ringio | case belory us. The reason 1s ob In England the | fsnot given on trials for mistemeanors, fo allow a | cutor Ands that several distinct, misdemeanors have the oid times, but be came not, and finally among | jpferior magistrates for more than thre puxishinent, and that, as for the one offence charged in | pimishment for misdemeanors Is, asa general rule, dis- | joinder of ditgrent felonies in the same iudiciment | been committed sud desires the ine ie lon of separate rs S in'the City Hall Park it was whispered | ceulury. ‘Tie laws and judgments of eourtshave been | ciferent wars, to, avoid objection for varianes. But | gretionary, with the Court (l itussell on crimes. en | ‘would deprive ho prisoner of some of the challenges | punisiinents for exeh. he, can, under, existing lnm, obs e grou y . a . ; there are cases to whicu reterence will thorefore ndou é@d., p. 9%1 ch. cr, law Ceo. 3, ch. allowed by law, which consequence would pot result b; y group! executed without unseeinly interruption by theans of vole, dsp ag the GoUrE Could iN'all casos upon x | alike joinder of Misdemeanors "With. Us the samo fen: | merita The prisoner will then de Cnnbied to avail him. ys f . hich | distinct” offences hays been | 1 Vi i that, after all, the “Old man might not get out.” | this writ of ty, aNd although a third of | be made, in wi ye if ky 1 it of his right of chailenging jurors on the trial of eae ' centaur. ‘a distinguished — Executive | joined tn teparate counts tn the sindistment, aniit | conviction of one or more misdemeanors, pass such | son does not exist for distinguishing betwen fe1onie: fiitiot his right ot challenging Jurors on the trial of eg IN THE SHERIFF'S OF PIO, Jee Sntied © | has not been held error. How far these cased’ justl tidemont and impose stich punishment as it should | and misdemeanors, as peremptory challehges are a 2 iT 1 that Tweed would be rear- | inure. ton the very eget eee qavoked aa Tdgmsenta’ aggregating a pimiantsentin es. | ares Proper ani apportioned to the werime or crimes | lowed on trials for both classos_ of offences. “Every per- | the dete f will bo confined to the tmatter charg it was understood that Tweed wor Feason tor 6o construing the statute as to contract the ‘of that prescribed by law for the specific grade of | charged. Camalative sentences, cach fully exhausting | son puton trial for any offence not capital or not pun- | that indictment, and the bone , « Proportiones va Ret Sls J nf) offence alleged will be considered in another connec- | the statutory power ot the Courti mprisonment in the State Prison for | within lezal iimits to the gravity of the offenc was observable that splayed an utier ig- ing's Beneh In England and the Supreme Court ot this Lote are ahd e | fats an the corresponding tribunal with uy There ia | derstood, in most oa i power exerci: respect toasingle | ishabio with Fesled as soon as OMcIal notice Was giveu 10 the | juricdiction of this writ the Legislature did not partici- 2 i © toon the practice io all kinds of ’ oS is safe to say, however, that these cases do pot | offence could not be imposed, as there is no such | ten years or longer 1s entitled to five peremptory | proved. It has Jong heon prac r 9 Tegular way from Albany to the Warden of Black. | pate in the fears expressed. and guifored the statuiesio | Hercaarity warrant the conclision that a couviction | {init amnd_cases.{n. Knwiana within. this’ rule ‘and | challenges. “(Laws of 18H, chap. 194) This statute wives | Grimiual caves, to ystht In the Indictment severat Weil's Island, in whose Penitentiary Twoed ts con- | Samet nN chy nrwest’ protection: “HI, G4, Noten) | forseveral offences thus charged is the equivalent of | formof punishment woult give no color or support to | ong put on trial form, mnlsdemeanor in a Court of Over | fount describing the | gence in Yaron em, : See nays te renin tte law that inferior imagisttstes | Several separate convictions upon distinct Indictinents | the Drosent judyment. The doctrine ts guid to have had | and Terininer the right to challenge peremptorily fiv ‘as to moot the cvidelice OM the trial, thus presenting fined, and it was rumored that fresn criminal in- no pe’ hs authorising several distinet. judgments. Ref- | its origin in-an expression of Lord Mansfield in “Rex | of the persons drawn as jurors tor such trial. By uniting | the appearance o( changing the various offences, but in POR al ees SR alpen Be ER mal eg : de and stress laid h Denied. 2 Narrows, 99." In speaking of the deci- | 20 distinct misdemeanors in ono indictment, tho ac- | fact. releting to only ono. Kut if under an indictment dictments had beew prepared against him, and | Jurfsiticton of the hignest courts when their process or | erence, M4. male, Mit trees iain aban, Ue. saul) | Non in Rea vs Clendoti, 2, Strange, S70, in which it had | cuvod. when being arraigned and. pat-on trig, (seither | containing several counts the proofs should cisclose Mtugmens come colateraly before Uiem, "Frevnass | Ot this, Sato @ Revised Statntes 700 section 1) | sion in Kee see tie On too people COU Tat be | cutitiod te Li peremptory ehallenres or is deprived of | ofences-sin fact, distinct—which might have been sub- would be so iar; y i that, upon the conviction of a person yn held thar p y that his bail on civil suits alone would be so large | ‘will ie tor property seized. or for the Imprisonment of | STW sore’ onunoes Detore sentence shail have been | joned in wasame indigtment, Lord Mansfield thought | the right in respect to 819 T the offences for waich he vs | ject of separate indictments, the Court can compel th: that Gweed wonld not be able to furnish it, and | a person by virtue of the judgment of the highest court | Dy vounced upon him for either the Imprisonment to | this not to be the law and said, “Cannot the King call a | put on trial. If tha distinct offences cliarzed aro but | public prosecutor, either daring the course of tho trial that tt would be impossible for him to find two | of,the state, init has not farisdiction of the person or to | Which ne shall be sentenced Upon the seruud subsequent | man to account for a breach of the poace because ne | fity-tive or any le-s number the proportion of challenges | or at 1t close, to oleot upon which count ne claims persons of good repute Whose real estate would | pass, upou the juiledietion “if ‘the acum ‘chances | Sonviction shall commence at the terminadon ot the | protease ssund of wot, which hae no pox. | Shanged. "the principle: ts" the aames "ihe joundcr Gr | prisoner oan be tried at'the samo Sve on, asin Gee ‘ Feecond. term. of imprisol @tho case may | gested a Tule, whe ot, ' a lo be before him tor trial, | It maiters pot what the gen- | Deshi) m | Sibl un to th ease at bar aid could notinany | felonies is disaliowed in England, Decaage the prisoner's | case, over fl sumMice In Its aggregate to fill hts bond, eral powers and jarisdiction of a court may be, if it act tiny matate post to ns in the particular case its jndgmepts 7 8 or disaflirms the | sense justity lekhion toe A representative of the HERALD, who nad heard | withou! authority ractice pursued In this case, JOINDER OF DISTINCT OFFENCES follows @ Joinder of inisdemonnors here, and ris- | my Judgment. be adoptea, nniess it can be shuwn to have Gi@erent. and confileting ramors; called and orders are more nuliitios, not voidable, bat simply | Fripiication or otherwise. The Legislature committed “at different mes, in the same | oner is deprived ol a right given him. by law. | been establishea by authority to which the Court, on tho aarp ahr sage ee slassiomteibe4 protecting no one acting ander, them and coustl- | TihGe evidently, convictions at diferent times and | indictment “It, “by a single ‘ct a “like | Tho reason for the distinction between felony and mis- | principle of stare decisis, ought to yield its own convie. Major Quincy at the Sherif’s office, and made all | ee eisai 1 Peters 223) “The distinction be- | cases in which jadgment might de pronounced upon one | criminal offense |= be committed against | demeauors fn xhis respect in En laud would forbid the | tionsof right In searching for authority for such a ‘ * (Elot. ve Pirated aul or wenetal suriwictan’is | conviction defore others were had; that is, convictions | two or more persons there may be goo! reason why they | Jotnder of distinct misdemeanors in the samo indictment | course of procedure wo naturally turn in the Ars in- Heceseary inquiries as to the truth of the rumors, | freon cours ot fa'ang judgmenss are relied upon | ¥Pom Independent trials ypon distinct ‘indictments | should be joined, otherwise the guilty party may be | in this Sate and under our statutes. Tt inay be added | stance to the alattites of our oun State. After diligens Major Quincy, who is Order of Arrest Clerk in the | Sierras givin ‘or farnishit fetence the latter | 8 tho same , term of the court or before | twice punished for whatis in substanoe but ong offence. | that prior to Ls47 the right of peremptory challenges on | search we find there noth!ng adapted to the eaforeement : Tener ae Eg Ae that at the former Must be proves, | sentence should be, pronounced upon alter. | Rox vs. Wilkes, 4 Burrows, 2627; % U. 19 How. St ‘Trials, | trials for misdemoasors was not allowed im this State, | of such practice oF recognizing tts efisienog. On the Sherif's office, furnished a copy of the order of | ff presumed. While tte Ot ine ie chs. jurisdiceiot or ti Tt is to stich casosand such only that the statuto has | 1,132, isnot an Authority for Joining district offences in | and hence the dicta apparentiy contradicti prac: | eonirary, all the provisions 1m Telation to indictments, rrest for Tweed on the civil suits which are being von t eSorat jurisdiction is one of fact and not conci! Ditherto been deemed applicable, It cannot be re- | one indictment. It is an authority tor a sentence of | tice found in our rior to that tim y well | trialsand punishments for crimes and misde: ore ” i ae Tebutred. ii It depends upon the | karded as authority for the procedure in this case, and Imprisonment upon a second con jon to commence at | have followed the Ea cases. The necessity of this | seem to contemplate Duta single convic.ion and somtenoe pressed against him by Wheeler H. Peckham, cn | % ietenc “ye. in facts the court has passed upon | ## changing the law, and ifit was otended the courts | the termination of an imprisonment upon a prior con- | legisiation shows that the true rule of the common Jaw | on every indictinent. We next turn to the reports of penalf of the “Bureau of Manicipal, Correction.” | those ute the dstsreicanan So: concleartte mack ee | BAT? deen very dilatory in Ascertaining its ssope and | viction. to which the practice of this State contormd. does not countenance the practice and the Judgment in | |, coc te ADIEDICATED CARES, aisha a cipal; + - 5 6 sers explain the reason for recommend: | ana is now. as we have see! 10 stature. fore Us. Ave examine: some eare th lary Judguent has been Teversed oF set aside. ana'thia rate ia | {te tio P ror ak there were two informa. | cases in the courts in this State an tof England to which | of this state to the present time. Notwithstanding the Ex, Gterent charges and, In case of con- right of challenge would be reduced, and the same result | viction, punished separately on each should not, in Feapeet to reparate convictions upon | sible appli ir id *, A nt Iny adoption, and it is merely to guard against pos- | report of the case shows th aeons Set eata ay ieage NOOR tats one as applicable to the Judgments of inferior as.of superior | siule omtasions in Wo forin of sentence uaany at Beat | dus for ibet, one exmibited in Michaelmas term, 1764, | we nave been referred or which have come under my | industrious ressarchos of counsel and oor own, we are omens O FORT tapes ve ong Soden, Say There is nothing | time pronounced in the class of cases mentioned. | for a seditions and scandalous publication in the ‘North | observation, and I find no hhold- | not referred to, nor do we find a single repo: ia Wupreme Court: oN lap iniie apohoation of ‘these well recognized | & & Hdmonds Kd. 56) Precedents for the | Briton, and the other exhibited soon therea(tertor an ob- | ing that the common law a5 ‘sted in England | which cumulative sentences have Hoon ttn on 8 Supreme Court—City and County of New Yo g ples te sonbedh ‘by the writ of ascorpusin | practic provided for by the statute thus | scene and impious essay on woman. The defendant | in April, 1775, or as it exists and ministered In this | conviction of several offences under ono Jasieumgas, . reople ol the State of New York va. William M. Tweed, | Prbietpies ts procucdings ty the wile oe uriyundercolsr | understood have been very familiar in this | was convicted of both libsls and was out‘awad on each, | State at this time, permits pumulative sentences to be | nor in which the power fo inilicl such sentences has hapleaded with the Mayor, didermen and, Commenaity | oy Vudicial proceedings Ayscgtsl7 old.” Neier BNOt | ee ee ee re a ety ee ne is Qe nk tas entot | Manian chatuedn diferent counts inatingie imaiee: | sony Of the Teporied oplatons, ate" explained in-twe ett i New York.—Uraer to ari 'o je M h 4 ractice several judgment e La ie extreme l= ret an . jeanors c! Shortt of the eity and county of New Yor the Habeas Corpas act, which Judges have “revered ag | penal W of the law foreach of several offences charged | irom a conviction upon an information tor i ment, in ‘the ‘aguzegale excoeding the punishment opinion of my assoclate, Judge Allen... then appeat ol Sappeat- | tho bulwark of the constimtion, the Magaa Charta of img to me by affidavit that a sufficient cause of action / in the same indictment and upon Galew in favor of the above. named plalnili a sonal rights,” 09 shorn, Of its powers | and THE TICHBORNE CASK. ing the prisoner to be ilprisoned two mor Shove named defendant, William M. Tweed. and the preetigi Brande HOHE | And matapnysical inter: | ts ctaimod to be a direct authority for the convietton | the counts, the imprisonment on each after th first to | mimstration of, the criminal la f unishment fora | to the experience of the yembers our t this. A proper ad- | cou several of whom have _ pro; swell inthe paiiic | a great number of years over courts of erie reK ingle conviction. ing four counts and the judgment of the Court scribed by law asthe extreme lim| rn minal dot Hretion in this ciate, and some exercised the office oused of crimes, | jur! ny “assume, ‘i won each of | single misdemeanor. I do not re; own i 6 one mentioned in sectiol 179 of the and sentences in the case at the ir. hnorne was | be computed from the expiration of (he imprisonment interest as for the protection of thore it Cone "or Procedure; | innd the, said piaintit Pens Rereeres Vechabtlinadoate cet Tae convicted upon a trial, betore Lord Chiel Justice Cock | on the next pgcceding count. The titrd was held deiect: | requires a different rule. The power of the Court was | of public presgouta enayging of them, sbeaking either ven ihe undert ing require: law, You are "7 “ . rh ant is associates. of two inct acts o! ‘rary ve, am ye Court adj or a Fequired lorthwith to arrest’ the derendaat, Willjam si, | Miways been construad in fayor of and not against the | Ooon “separate counts in ag indictment, and ‘sentonces | the fourth count wes pet thereby inva ‘com: | to imprisonment for on icymentofafine | such arpower has been exercised or sanctioned ia this but that It was to be computed from | of or ifseveral judi a negative pi it) of the subject and the citizen, and the reading far q hy ni hh te st for the torm of 5 in futal ATA the sam oF 95.00.00), and to-return this order, | must be the same whether the benefit of I is invoked by | Spor “Guconmectae offences aud. ie iestated that the | iesxpiration ofthe linprisonment onthe secon’ count. | sentence, the samme in the uegregate ditAbuting euch | 13 iBable of bein ‘established, that there is no agthority fo the Attorney Gene guyled “Bureau of Spe pares, tine one moss werhy of condign punishmsese, | ome Bamed is the extreme Iimit of banishment | No other qaesion was raised or decided. Whether the | punishment and, apportioning | it to the | com | int ts fs 8y the course ‘now, attempted to be sus. 1 O01 . Peck- Bpon a sin conviction je crime charged. istril ive ent wa a considored, | vi ne a cout accor 5 oocani: Dara, No, 18 Wail sere re, om ibe fi vor | The iw is he iit be shown there was a conviction fortwo of: | a me Tot in excess | the ‘demerits, of the, offences charged. ia cach, Heqoently cecurred, and that we are caliod upon to in- ents can be pronounced by a | State. It thus appears, as dita No, 18 Wall street, Now York, on tbe firstday of 2 apd the aapre te puni: nt ws Saly, i875, and you are required forttrwith to Telare the ‘XO RESPECTOR oF PRRAON, ices, Which, In this State, would be fetonious, on the | of that whe Tight Gave deen inflicted for s single | and each and every of the judgments and sentences | troduce 4 now doctrine into our jurispraaence contrary order theretotore made for such arrest. Dated April20, | and suffers no man, be he guilty or innocent, to be de- me trial, whieh is not pormissable with us, the de- ilkes wes sentenced to imprisonment for | in excess of that limit was coram@ non judice. A jw to our previous practice, and, a4 I think, the Taaority. 197. NOAU DAVIS, Justice Pupreme Court. rived of his liberty except ‘by due process of law,” and | cision cannot be r vires 45 authoritative evi of alendar months a echecaviques for alike | ment in the and the ex allowed DY iaw once | if not all, of my brethren will concur with ma vensup TER LTE Mor. Diy es tarteen Se pee eieeal sates | pian, eae, ena % “AL, Sekceeertad | Stars Seti Abereidralasee alate iad | SMa Teak ORS memramencee te ehuteees | ita NT pastaltauee tel Seiad fo . uilty. ‘ondem ny 10 eo WAS in remy Icio In r at pro: 01 t, | tie CA ‘The HERALD representative, ma conversation | Eui,S04 te eae ined Gomaritinente OY ANG Kin Te | eee ie ee oan ty ‘some vale wee wn 6 offen 3, PI indtetment do not one, transaction was under, Investigation upon the | except to sce that the judement was oxecuted, There | Statntos of the United States, and of some of our sistet With Major Quincy, obtained imiormation in re- | council. But the act needs notnterpretation. and isinfult | know. Be that it may, the Judgmenthas not received | trial. Upon a general verdict ba! ing: A sentence | wasno longet any record er verdict upon which the | Siates and of England. have been referred to, which ia gard to what Was being cone about Tweed. Major | accord with the ommon law and ihe adjudications both | the deliberative sanovion of ally court, in bane and hag | was passed upon the prisoner, To the objection made | court coud act. The jurisdiction over the persna of the certain casce and under restrictions allow the Joiner Quincy said:— in this State and in England and with the constitution. | not ripened into a precedent even in England. Itisat | ow crror that offences were found in the indiwtmen condemned was exliausted as if no prosecution ha of several criminal charges in one indictment, but these “1 pave sent Depaty Sheriff McGonigal to Black- Persons committed or detained by virtue of the final | most bat evidence of what the common law is as now | Lord Kenyon said the objection would be we'l found ever been instituted against him, The purposes ofthe | statutes rather disprove than prove the right at cor po Me 1aaea With aor Of arrest of which | Judgment or deoree of any competent tribunal of civil or | administered in that country, but, no evidence | the legal jndgmunt on each count was aifferent. It | prosecution of the indictment lad been accomplished. | law to, pursue that course, Else, why the nece: woil's island with the order of arrest of which | Criminal jurisdiction, of by virtue of any execution | as. to what. it. was, on the 19th of | would be like a misjondey in civil actions, but in this | [tthe punistment for the offonce is fixed by statute of | enacting them? Now, what is’ the aushority you have a copy, and he was on the Iisiand &t | issued upon such judyment or decree, are expressly ex- | April, 177% The practice of uniting several | case the jndament on all the counts ts procisoly the | jaagment in excess of the statotory limit itis void for | which we aro called upon to introduce into this Six o'clock us morning in anticipation of the de- | cinded from the benefit ot the act. (i Kevised Statures, | counts in an indictment is a departure from the anciont | same. A misdemeanor is charged on cach, Most prob- | the excess, a¢ wo have seen by adjudged | this new practice? It Isto be found only im the opimions cision of the Court of Appeais. I sbali wait at the | 663, sec. 2) And if upon the return of the writ it appears | practice. Lord: Denman says. in O'Connell vs. Queen, | ably the charges were moant to coyer the same facts, | caves supra. A party held only by virtue of | of judges of courts in England of a date later than that Oifloe until sx o'clock this afternoon tn case that | thatthe party is detained In onstody by virtue of such | (IC; la and Fin., $75), that im ola times the indictment | but, if it were not so, I think they may judgments " thus pronounced = a therefore | ap} to which by our constitution we adopted the com- be judgment or decree, oF execution issued thereon, he nsisted of a single Goumt, and it may be assumed that mdictment. With him the other id for want of jurisdiction, or by reason | mon law of Sngland, and unless ia @ single ver; dail is offered for Tweed, and | shall be on hand to | Nasmens cr Gecnse: tre dey ec. 40), Such portogs ‘are | {kinase roe Late words of anelont counsel tn a beet | [one £0,cne Seis, Ince Wutiec states the practice ins | ofthe excess of Jariediction, is not’ put to Nie writ ot | receut ease a'whton this anestion whamct seleen or ak, ased by habeas corpus. It will | cussed or any rexson given—the Tichborne case—no court having power togive a | practical cation of whe rule Cy rs, from any ata | the ca to have been made cum ag? - in extent grealer in the receive it.” Geprived of their tiberty “by due process of law,” and | in another cass now before me, this device of ingerti ¥ which would prohibit a trial for distinct offences at | error, but may ber RuPORTER—How much will be the amount of pail | gronos within the purview of the constitution’ or the | many counts 10 avoid a variance, did nov change ie | thesia: times He aays.on tie fce of the indictment | nocahewer 16 say th necessary, and what are the qualifications? was | purposes ot tne writ. To bar the appiicant from adis- | law govarning at tho trial. There ia no objection to | every count imports to ba fora different offence and is articular judgment oan give any judgment, and ¢ next asked. charge Rely tana f Bini E'suieh oe jot cf ating we Le af Cie e " many Cy a) cnarged ag at different Himes, it does not a pear oa oeeeres Bo gethorteed by ia ‘aad contrary to law ie ‘ate sgants, to an extent, ta * ha! au executios . ment | ma: jeemed expedien cannot misiead the ac- | the record whether the offences aro or aro no! inet; | merely voi and not void ana mus corrected by sn could have been inflicted upon cither o: Mason Quincy—The amount is three millions, | FP tecree is given must have had jurisdiction to render | cused of eubarrass him in hig defence, or expose him to | butie ic appears botore the defendant has pleaded ot | error. This would be tridiag with te law, the libe lone. Upon the strength of, these opinions ond there caunot be jess than two securities. Ne such judgment. Tho tribunal must be competent | accumtlated punishinents, But the rule, as now recog- | the jury are charged that he is to be tried for separate | of the cltizen and the protection thrown about his persoh | clemontary writers ‘stated it to be tho law that RePORTAR—What amouny will those two eure- | to ronder the judgment under some circumstances. | nized, ‘extend, turther than this, and different msde. Web ‘4 It has been tho practieé of the judges folquash by the bill of rights and the constitution and or iy a | various misd ay be jolned m one indtetment tiem have to qualify in, and what must they offer | The probibition of the torty-second sec ion of the Habeas | meanors may, it is said, and With a show of authority, be | the indictment lest it would confound the prisoner, in | Judicial despotism, Tt would be to defeat jastico, naility | under several counts and tried at (he same time, for ball? Corpus act, forbidding the inquiry by the court or Joined in the same Indictment and tried at the sime time. | his defence or sjudice him in his challenge of the | the writ of habeas corpus by the merest technicalliy = te convictions had, although it is conceded that Major QuIncr—Each of the two sureties will | officer into the of any previous judgment, de- | ‘ihis change in the administration of the criminal law | jury; for he might object to a jury: ‘s trying tifleial process of reasoning. There may be | where the ofleuce amonnis to a felony thefts can be but have to quailly in $6,000,000, and it must be unen- | Sree o cution specit in the twenty-second section, | affecting substantially (he mgbts of persons accused oné of the offences though he might have | and p, bly ig @ distinction between cases where the | one conviction and one sentence uoder one indtetment. cumbered real ete which the a | 4088 Not and cannot, without nallifying in good measure | crime, resis mainly for its sanction upon the mo no reasoD to ao #0 in tho other. #ut these | pun she i retjonary, “4 iy Bagland, in | The samo statement has beeu repeated In some Ameri- ie ag ag My af it tone ike ote the provisions ot that and other sections of the act, take | modern practice of the courts, and the extent of the | are only matters of discretion. The caso gives no | Most cases of misdem: bh ‘Those fn which | can cases in other cases, atl ae these are few, and those Taust, by the satisty mys at they are men | from the court or officer the power or relieve him trom | change thus made in the lawcan only be certainly | countenance to the doctrine ot cumulative ments, | there is a limit fixed by ute, as in this State. No | to be round conflict with each other, and none of them of good repute and standing. And in case they do | the duty of determining whether the process, judgment, | known by a reference to the cases in which the ques- | bat by implication ig adverse to ir. King va has courtcan give a judgment valid’ for any inppore not | aro authority here, it 4 net usual to Ko into them in de- ng it Rot appear it will be necessary tor Tweed to de- | deerce or execution emanated from a court of competen dicated and ascertaining the priu- } (Vartnew 226), merely held the tnformation fata antuorized by law. A prisoner condemne rand | tail. It may not bé out of place, however, to remars in posit $3,000,000 in bank to order for bie bi jarisdiction, and whetber the court making the judg- | cl upon which they rest. If there could bat one | fective, as general, and not distinctly st larceny, for which the statatory ame is im. pace Se tin Massachusetis the practios had ob. REPORTER—DO you know who is going bati for | Mentor, deores, or issuing the process, had the legal and unishment as for a single misdemeanor, i: tive of | single offence. No other question was before the Court, risonment in the State Prison for a term not exceedi: ained pme of the counties founded on local custom Treed? constitational power to give such judgment or send | the number of offences Proved and of, which should | aud nothing else was decided except that the jtdemont ve years, and who is sentenced for Years, is not to unite and iry several distinct offences mnder one head m In 4 a number of forth euch Tt simply prohibits the re- | be convicted by the verdict of the jury, although he | should be arrested, because no and suf- | atter the expiration of t! irst five years, held by due | indictment, the Legisiature of that State ocnacted @ Major Quincy—I have heard a number of names | view of the decision of a coart of competent | might be embarrassed in hisdetence and prejadic ficiently stated on the infor ble to diss | process of law or the “jad ot BOS any person who | jurisdiction. If the record shows that the judgment | with the jury, the Court cowld possibly see that no great | cover ffenos was well jon. Tam uns iment of a court of competent | statute providing that ‘Iwo or moro counts describing Mentioned, but 1 hi apphieab:! of Rex ys. Kingston, or anything | jurisdiction.” No court is or can be competent to p' different offences, may be set forth in the compiaint or Was willing to offer the amount named. cannot | isnot merely erroneous, but such as could not, under | harm eottid come to the acc by a joinder of offehces. | in the argument ot ees fy bh to this case. | nouuce a sentence and give judgment in open and pal indictment depending upon the same facts or trausac- rel anyuihg about (Bat Sesated" ihe’ ses" aed Shc ke"eaeSpiine My | He'atn, te iSamd Stns Wook theewstuitoelay a =" | ROVMutremeten esccmetgos" tt Suarie peloge ax | Rie gia te tly oid "wth sip Samco tearapitete of succes act aera oot + of the | limit " h 101 of r r for ny ‘oid. , dese t "4 in (urther Conversation it was discovered that | sarute aud the applicant must bo discharged. If the | oe OID OF D ex (0 is ashok advance tne | areprocoribed by netate, aswell ustocharatier as to ese | utes of ML, C. 161.) This isa clear legaiatve contenius- PRARNT OFFENCES Rex v4. Galway (1 Moody C. . 234) oes ‘Tweed's iriends were working very bard, but were | judgment is merely erroneous, the court having given a | they must be of the same grade and gequire the same | arwu Ge prosecat much puzzica a# tO what they snouid do, and ic wrong Judgment when it had jurisdiction, the party ag. | judiment. If judgments may be duatrfbntive and cumn- | charged in the firetcoanto! the indictment with burdiary known that the order to atrest could not be | arieved can only have relief by writ of error or other | Imtive it is difftcu't to seo why thore should bo an iden- | and larceny, and in the second count with feloniously 3 werved until an official record had been tous cter and extent of punishment. | reesiving the same goods knowing them to have been | is ultra vireas, and like every ott cessary (Oo pormit offences of dit- | stolen. They were found gailty on second count al, done without log: mont of The prisoners were | tent, and @ sentence not conformavie to | tion of the thoory of cumulative convictions and punish. not warranted by statute, or | monts under one indictment, as there ean be but one in excess of the legal punishment, | punishment for the same act, and even in exciea cases, act. whe ther jusieial ro & class evi genaris, A statute of that Stace pr “That several parties aud offences may be annot be relieved summariy by | tty asto their chi abens corpus. The inquiry is necessarily in every case | Statutes have beeu n: 18 Youd. A Roan 4 a "that the’ recora aust e made whether the. proces is void and” tho omiodt or | ferent degrees and requiring different punishments, a!- | only, The legality of the conviction was submitted py | sentence to imprisonment in tno state Prison for a mis- | included in the samo complaint and tried . wa? ours r Sa o court paving Jurisdiction ot the writ must pass bart relating to the same subject matter to be joned. | the Mecorder to the judges, and they were unanimously | demeanor would be void, as would asentenve to imprise | a same time, and suocessive convictions had; but fn tne lower © he preme Court, | upon it ®& process good in fotm issued | d Arch. Cr, Pr. and Pl. 01: Kano vs. Peoplo & W. B. 203} | of opinion that the charges might Tegaliy be found, and i vas the statiiory peualty. A | the whole aggracate term ot tmprisonment under any whose decision haa been reversed by the | upon a jodement of a court hay Hid jurisdiction, either | People va. Wright, 91b., 19%) ‘The adjudications of oar | the couvietion was med, but t! were equally unanthorized by law | one complaint or indictment, or atone term of the osecutor should have been in officer in tife exeention of the pro- | Court for such violations, slall not exceed one year.” upon they allagreed that othe respective clerks of assize | @r by detaining a person antil the fine should be paid: Court of Appeals. This order will be received thi: eral or limited, must in ail Gases be assumed | own State come shortot warranting distributive or | divided wether ft! | morning, an0 nothing can be done for Tweed's be valid until the judgment be reversed upon | cu.nulative punishments upon distinct counts and for | hiselee-ion, onl th cess for its collection of the property of the condemned, | The case cited from, Pennsylvania Commonwnaith vs. rel ‘until this record been made, and or the remedy by writ of habeas corpus | different offences. The first case to which we are re- | tions shout he give ; Rirdeall (9 Penn., 482), if devkling what is claimed by Chen Ne Will be rearrested on the civil anita and | (Til! be of but iittle value. | The distinction berween | forred is Kane va The Yeopie. supra. The plaintid in | not to put both charges iu the sane indictment. King | It a courthuving jurisdiction of the person of the ac: | the prosecution. 14 in conflict with the scttied law, ag a tue aibdavile of 1 in Judgments void and those orronsous, and therefore vold- | error was indicted for the non-pertormance ot his | vs. Johnson (3 M. and %. 539) s anthority for joining In an | onsed and of the offence of which he is charged may im- | well of England ag of this State, as it would sanotion complaints an ‘agersoll and | able, is recognized in all the casesto which we are re- | duties as a director of a turnpike company. | indictment a count for embeaziement of kK notes, | pose any sentence other than the logal statutory judg- | the union of several — felonies. G ave Garvey and tho others who have betrayed the | ferred. All the eminent jarists who delivered opinions | The indictment contained two counts, aud there Was & | under a sta.nw of the realm, with « count | ment, and deny the aggrieved vary all retuef execpt | heen referred to no other precedents in sup of the King into the hands o/ the law, In the celebrated cave of John V..N. Yates in its various | general veruiet of guilty and a fine’ imposed ot $200. | for larceny of the same notes, and "this | upon’ writ of error, it in but A judicial sus: | doctrines claimed which call tor special observation, TO BE ARRESTED FOR FORGERY, ae a ase Sarbetne nactris 3 1 OL, Ur sper one first Pers aed Mn td peed md i. a, 8 pd . en (a LJ maar ane ot = yess < saee corpus That “ie pi At ere GU as Mg 4 c Dose! " j loctritie, although the verdict and judgment were ap} fe second coun rasovlogy of the statute against embexatement, wile alike & protection against encroachments toon the | Sta iy ot. Boforo we ad Oe ne a ee ees ur Ware endne aan fejadgmente in that particular cane; | nod the Judgment afirmed. it Ws true ths Chanoeltok | Reclured that tue offender should. be deemed to ‘have | liberty ol the citizen, by the unauthoriasd acts OF courts | doctriue that several Misdercanors may pe lolhed—e fered widely in 1! i tain whother there Was OF Was AOL A Dinch war | put their differences, as well ag tho uitimate decision of | says, oblter, that 1f@ distinct punishment had been jn. joualy stolen them, constituting the offence a felony | and judgot as against any more arbitary argests. | doctrine of comparatively modern growth—Iet ws see om Yant lésued for Tweed’s arrest on any further | the matter, turned upon the peculiar circumstances of the fisted for the offence charged. in each the judgment the samo Ze laroony,, Tox va. Jones (2 mp, 281) is | The ine mont in this case ii an euomaly, avd is. probe what ground the ‘distinction is made between felonies c-iminal charges. The people at the Shorif’s | care, and do not bear, except very remotely, upon the | would only have been reversed as to the first count, | nisi prius decision, The prisoner was indicted for frauds , Without precedent; but it may have been justified | and misdemeanorm—whether (here is any distinction in omMce concealed what they knew in regara to this | questien now under consideration. Mr. Hill in his | This, at most, is but an intimation of the opinion of | committed by him as a Commissary General and the | by the peculiar circumstances the case. But if a | principle so far pe isconcerned, and wheihee = + ; yaluable note to the McLeod ease (3 Hitl, 647) hascare- | the Chancellor tha, separate judgments might juestion was whether the prosecutor could evidence | tute Was necessary in England to the jotnder of th: the distinction is assumed to exist ander the ere ad be eritnin warrant isaed,, oe fully and with his usual accuracy Cpitorhed, tha law | have been iven™ Upon each — coun! But or partot the sums which the defendant had illegally | or tour offences In one Indi it ent in several counts, ant LAW OF ENGLAND, 2 relating to the writ ot habeas and pointed out | if 18 not evidence that the law authorized | obtained under one count and at the residue under | to proceed thereon in respeet to any or of them. it | eyon if sound there, ve any application anter the laws as held that he could. Lord Ellen- | can hardly be olatmed that the common law allows 20) | of this Stato, A very brief examination will show tab Court could have done more than distribute the full | borough sa: 8¢@ Not the slightest objection to evi- | separate offences to be charged. ant a tial aml convic- | the reasons assigned in Kugiaud for this Gistinotion, UNCIATED measure of punssbment prescribed for a single misde- | dence of various acts of fraud committed by the defend- | tion and separate punishments for fity distinct offences. | even St sound re, are totally inapptica charged in the two counts, | ant in bis office of Commissary Genoral, though charged | No precedent tras been found for the practice. Ihe justi | hers. Ia Uy ra it is wr ber found probuoly in the og | Wokserva dhat the, Buunabet fot FasaSinSaay s Wrongs had been perpetrated, dit ngiand js, Peas At fhe time when this doghiae ne ment fi a single mise. | enuncldied thera, in Fas generaitty of casos, ciscrotion- doomed fnadequate fo the | ary with the Court The Court nad aS Wer io a iS ot ia State from the | it, and there is no intimation that the | anotner, and it Sherim Joan T. Cumming acknowledged | the departures under the te writer that a bench warrent haa common lav, 8 Nig been L-Fued by the District Attorney and had been ‘TUR PROPOSITIONS piaced in bis bands, and that it was sent yester- ¥, him are well sustain La Authorities cited in | meanor detween the. offenci @ay morning to Dapaty Sherif McGonizal, who | the note, and so far as applicable to the case in hand | The People vs Rynders (12 W. R., 429) was anindictment | under different counts’ as disiinot and sud- | floation ts was on Blackwell's [sland, and thus it’will be seen pA eg LM ComnOn AY et | foniheaad countering Sud uMectng. and pubeetinn | fiat’ Convisiioes’ sak ceparnle pudtaments’ ior 's of @ party is detained ing and connte! a hat convictions at eeparate unishments tor 7 shat MoGonigal as a bench warrant to serve, on | On process the existence and. validity A prance aa | So Ruracheahon n honk, na the gunvietio ‘was of | Gutinct offences wero” not. in the mind of an order Of arrest, The | the only racts in issue, and the right to inquire into the | the forgery. The Court merely held there was no mis. ounsel or the Judge. Tt is authority for the admis- | offence, and the public miad was i} bench warrant is issued on @ charge Of | validity of the process is co-extensive with that which | Joinder of counts and that the prosecutor not of diatmet acs charged in different counts to prove | called tor what wiutd be thought an Approximate inti Son an here, Wedel sod itroiten statnie, tomate Orgel y sa Ty 1 William M. Tweed in hi ring pro- te anewes see oe 7 Hope ap It = ore tok ata] be) eoant Ay | = Cea ropes) to wat iraud ig ty in nen cares ot ee oe Cad feree cepropriete puntsh- | quentiy, miihiongn R privonor might be sentew va ured the signatur: . ed prima | viction. People ‘ e Fred to the responses © judges of Kng- | mont for the offender. 1 woul! not bo thourht to 4 . ‘ 3 CofA Oakey Hail feloniously to | Tre Tegal and to bet Inad to certain questions presented them by the House | with the trial court in respect to tho charnctct of the of | counts ia the sang: iettcheaey Te eene om, aiiferene ie | risoner must assume the bur {| bearing upon the question now fore us, Giafedinat_ no a hot anow woah toe wartams | dog*urte namaste waa @ kaw ot dengue: | sant Bate, *haneg yanaiter algres | @letdewn dh near erneeicterie’ yct,end | mace etn 1a objeo- or leo! ween ‘ot re) es to vi in at case oe ie was for, and the Clerk of the Court of Ses- | tion, nor is auy defect which may be amended or reme- felon! Was discretionary ‘eich th Cougt and not the upon all the counts in ¢! yaadiormont, ane * ike ba meee ey of the slasutory punishinont | the aggregate of these terms Was creator than the Court had power to imposo, if it chose to do so on either of (ho THR REMEDY * counts But the main reasons a’ | mh gan sions, t 3, declared cautiously that | died by the court from which it Issacs. It there was no | subject of review on writ of error. People va. Costello, | jadgment passed against the accused upon the verdict | was by several indictments if the off peers Micon ai e did not see any such document, but | loa! power to render the judgment or decree or issue | (1 Den. 89), was an indictment agaist ‘hi E tor id out discrimination, and as one ‘yadgmen Bome Dur tue Court can ieatr Saenintenet the. lowes, 9 fin Stars fo the Hane an new He gps Hhngeot that's that he had heard that there was such a docn. | he Process there wae no competent court, | atempting to procure an abortion upon. o! arg | the counts were bad. and the judginout was reversed | thon, and it i far Dotter that the most ality thould es. | priwoner oannele ben ieiat tor canions aleeiaet tetse menk in @xisionce from outeide ne no judgment or Rfecem Marache. In two of the counts the attempt char, for that reason. The contention was whether verdict | oape than that the law shoull be judicially disreg, nies ander one indiotment, beesuse it woul grriter wia0 called on Asal: md void. (Section 3 HIfl. Note | to hav mad ad ring drugs, and in other | and judgiment conld be lied to the or "A greater pubito wroi wold be ‘ante embarrass him his a 4 fond the jury an ssistant District Attorhey | sapra, pp. 659, ‘and case cited.) When a pris | two by means of a inst On the trial evidence 1 thus | sustained, learned. one more vant io ite Saat eifeots aad | confound th et 1 4 rajadioe In hi. chelenres the bistrice attorney's ol t “again” B fonght ta be dich red on habeas ogepus, oa the grown Tad fro In the ‘abuntateteri gs, and ise 74 Tee, to Geoenane’ se orihe jury, the law of hogland al owing to the prisoner 1] iy, an jury anish: in Humber of pe hablonges in eaves of this official — also that the offence was committed without the jurisdiction | two gull all the tA, the three on t joinde: coun! and: Re Reree rere ie” Socsne to ee he did not MiWorscarn | Wetand sopond, “The Contsbie that when ivepurared | “ioaueed iehieteenme ber salt noihies wos anenitele BA SO Ce felony. But they say that this objection to tl ja) now anything of the bench warrant, of the court, th bbe was willing to admis that tuere were teas the ipateten Gas’ Varcern th No 1688 | withia the {urisdte adh ehatged the locas ta quo ts be Costello waa Not implicated 1 ‘te Geterininod in tho Jud loc no to lo Waa plicates in on offence: stermined in tho ent of the Cour a m of the court, and that Tact inast prosecutor should have been put 1a his election. an Trow the couourrent osinions of The (tages tuat witi oan result from. ae a of several offences in one mitotment doce Not e@xi, erent criminal inaictments | have deen {oud by the lure W trav or rariadi@e- brads trial was ordered, Hodeman va The Pe: aie ceaeine UOe® erhnes oq au comenmmes, ? {dividual comms of mindemoanor. because in those cone by ¢ + ie we of Jastion wm Fi t n ne hg) eraweation arevoitad by vu | fwd retoem cad bn adwragod by Vleet wDd Void ase or | Shaliewea” Memoa, arrasman ti-rane