Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-01-08

N
motion as made, and hear the arguments on Monday.
Judge.-Cerainly, Sir.
The clerk OF Mr.. Lord, counsel for Haqgerty. was
then informed of this arrangement and went to report
progress TO John Hagcerty and his lawyer
CouRT OF SESSIONS Saturday, Jan. 6-7He peo-
pie rersus the Messrs. FigHeira.-Mr. Cutting coun-
sci for defendants, rose and stated the Court that
an indictment had been found against his clients
ntanng 10 separate and distinct charges for felony,
and ircladlng So counts; he now rose to make me.
ton, that the do quash the indictment" or the
public prosecutor be required by the court to elect
upon which Of the charges he meant 10 try the cause
Mr.. Cutting commended, with mach ability that the
District Attorney couo not put his clients upon trial
on an indictment containing several distinct charges
of forgery or felony.
cutor stated, that according to the decisions in Cht-
~ on Criminal Law" IT was deemed frequently ad-
vlsable where the crime is Of complicated nature 10
insert several counts or charges in the Indictment;
and doubt can be entertained that this course as
egslas u Is advantageous for II is objection
either upon demsrrer or upon arrest Of Judgment that
separate offences, OF the same nature, are Joined
against the came defendant. This may be seen in 2
Wendell, 2l0, 2ll-Kane vs.. People; II Wendell,
430-People Va. RyDders; Serg. & Rawle 469-
Commonwealth vs.. Gillespie
And the only mode Of objecing TO jender of
such offences in case Of felony, is by an application
t. the court to quash the indictment before plea or
TO compel the prosecutor TO elect, which charge he
will try in subsequent stage of the proceedings
Bat the court will only listen to such a request IN
cases Of felony, &c. when they see that the
charges actually distinct and may confound the
prisoner distract the attention Of lury; and thew
will not listen TO IL al all IN case ofmsdemeaner In
cases Of msdemeanor punishable by fine and impr-
sonmen, The prosecutor may Join several distinct Of
fences in the same Indictment and try them all at
the same time Kane W.. People, Wendell, 2li.-
And in such cases IL there be two counts one good
and one bad and the defendant s convicted on only
count, the Indictment will not be quashed on de-
murrer, or Judgment arrested or reversed for that
the common practice TO receive evidence several
libels and of several assaults under the same indct-
ment However, where the indictment comprehends
several distinct msdemeanors, charged against differ
eni persons, il may be good Qrosnd Of application
TO the discretion OF the court 10 quash the Indictment
on account Of the Inconvenience which might result
Al the trial for joining different counts against differ
en-, offenders The introduction Of several counts,
| therefore, which merely describe the same transact
ton IN different ways cannot in general be made the
subject OF objection, for the defendant can aeithcr
demur apply To the corrt TO relieve him. move IN
arrest Of Judgment Kane, VS.. People, wendell,
30, I'll II seems also TO follow from these prnci-
pies every separate count should charge the de-
iendant, as If he had committed distinct offence,
because is upon the principle Of the Jelnder OF Of
fences, that the JOINER OF countsn aoml,'eo t5 II a.
1867; Campl 1927 aad 10 the supposed second or
third offence in each should De prenred state
ment, that the Jury SUPER sacrdmenfum SUM unert-
us presenfort-Hot 667.
when the mellon to quash is made on the part OF
the defendant Inc rules by which the Court are guided
are more strict and their objections ore more hume
rous . because II the indictment be quashed the re-
coppnances will become Intellectual Il Sess. cAs IL
and the Courts usually refuse to quash on the spp
cation Of the defendant when the Indictment is for
serious offence, unless upen the cearesI and planest