The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-01-22
General Sessions.

| Before His Honor the Recorder, Judges Lynch
and Noah and Aldermen Timpson and lines
JAN. zl.-Case Of Charles r. N1itcheu--At the
opening Of the court Judge Moan proceeded to
give his opinion the application of the counsel
Of Charles F. Mitchell, for arrest of judgment
in the recent verdict rendered against him. On tho
ground that the two Aldermen sitting upon the
bench as Judges at the time of the trial rendered
the court an illegal tribunal in accordance with
th-law of 1910. His opinion was lengthy, and was
mere repetition of the arguments heretofore pre-.
scented to prove that the Aldermen were not, le-
gally, judges ofthe Court. He commended that as
the Aldermen had acted Judges during the trial
OF Mitchell, contrary to the law Of l84O therefore
the application for an arrest of judgment was
proper, and should be granted
Judge LYNCH followed with his view of the case.
and maintained that he Aldermen had not been
| consulted as Judges of that Court, although thew
sssy ' %srs . upon the bench that
of the General S.s.ion-. hS. .-.r~ .ai .awiedeed
And in conclusion, he decided that their intrusion
upon the bench did not present sufficient argument
to induce him to decide in favor Of granting tho
application of counsel
The RECORDER then read his opinion. which
was concise He stated that he application for an
| arrest of Judgment should depend mainly upon
some fault in the record. That the mere fact of
the assumption by the two Aldermen to hold seats
on the bench Of the Court did not destroy the pow
or of that Court to perform the duties incumbent
upon it, and therefore application for arrest of
Judgment on that ground was not coed. That if
counsel, the result would cause almost a general
Jail and prison delivery. After short review of
| the decision of the Supreme Court, he refused to
accede to an arrest Of judgment, which therefore
was rec lrded as the opinion of the Court, himself
and Judge Lynch osncurring
At this moment Alderman HIVES stated that no
had prepared an opinion in the which he would
read.
Judge Lynch objected to the reception of the
opinion.
Alderman ISrns rose and was about to proceed
with the reading, when Judge LYNCH meved that
the Aldermen be not allowed to read the opinion
Alderman TIMpsoN then rose with his opinion.
when
Judge LYNCH stated that he conceived the pro.
ceedlngs violation Of all rules OF the Court
and contrary to its Geccrum. That he believed
! the law already declared Judgment Of oust1y in
the ease of the Aldermen, and he was prepared to
put 1t IN full elect at any ire OF compelled by the
circumstances
| Alderman ISyEs replied by stating that himself
and associate asserted tqeir rights Judges Of tho
Court, and claimed 10 be heard in the case Tha.
they had bothprepared opinions, and in case a ma
jority Of the Court had decided ia ia of an ar
rest Of judgment they shsuld certainly bave insist
ed upon the opinions being received in order to
! reverse that decision.
Aldermen TIMPsoS again rose, whom the Recor-
der, TO whom Judge Lynch had appealed TO stop
/ proceedings, suggested that the opinions Of the
| Aldermen be filed in Court, whiC h was sgree ed TO,
aud thus ended'a difficulty which. appeared, fer
few minutes, TO be kelly to terminate in something
mere than mere legal arguments.
| DAVE l.. GRAHhA, Esq thea moved that the
minutes Of the Court in November last at tac time
| Mitchell was tried, be corrected so as to csayey
The fact that the Aldermen did set and act as
| Judges Of the Court.
Judge LyScs denied that such was the. case, and
stated that their names appeared the minutes OF
the Court as Judge OF the Special Sess ions only
| VIII eh was the only proper entTy.
| Mr. GRAHAM asserted thai if the Court wouid
| fix a day he would prove by hundreds Of witnesses
that they did sit aud act as judges that he would
| n as IN tha fact
| he therefore requested an opportunity TO show IT,
After considerable srcuiaent by court and counsel
the Recorder selected Tuesday next 20 hear the ar
gument on this point. Nr Graham in conclusion
| stated that tie counsel Of Mitchell would move
the supreme Court 10 gFant a wit OF nd anu, 10
compel the court 20 chow cause why they would
not arrest the judgment apiiied for, after il had
been shown that the sldermsn bad acted ~ JUDGES
during the trial he also moved that Mitchell be
discharged on his own recognizanco on the two
other indictments against hira on The ground that
ne had been ready eight months for trial, and the
District Attorney had not called the case. Ths
Court refused hrs motion, and the argument in thu
ease closed
| Mr. ID CRArr made applications TO the Court for
an order 10 obtain ad msscs TO one OF his clients at
the Upper Police Office, which he stated il was
| impossible to accomplish without obtaining writ
Of habeas corpus, he having en- refused entrance
by the magistrate and the keeper The Court de-
cided that the laws Of the country were such as Az
lowed any member Of the bar 10 have access to his
| clients as often ss was necessary; and that on
hearing Of both side, Of the case they would mate
! a decision. The statement so far being or pa,s,
| they could not act upon IT,
SENTENCED w lillian n Jones and Jeromih
Jsckson found guilty or burglary in tho SC ond d.
gree, In entering tie house of Daniel I, Townsed
few weeks SINCE, add stealing quantity ef silver
| y are, &c. were both sentsrced 10 impri,0nmnt
Ia enc States prison for FIVE years and thrce ncnts
The Court then odi0uns 20 !, oclock os Tas-
day morning.