The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-11-14

fenced TO be executed on the 18th of November, in
slant, for the murder of Samuel Adams -
ALBANY, November 18th. 1912.
John u Cot was convicted the 9th day OF Septem
Der last a, Court OF Oyer and Termner in the city OF
New York on an Indictment Tor murder, and was
fenced 10 ser death on the eighteenth day OF the present
advantages OF defence allowed Every objection
raised by the counsel deliberately considered the
charge oil the Court manifested unusual tenderness
wards the accused and the jury examined the evidence
with extraordinary patenceiend attention
When the verdict had been rendered, application for
anew trial. on the grounds OF alleged prejudice by joror
improper conduct by the jury other supposed rregu
laitie was considered by the Court OF Oyer and rerm
ner and justly denef The presiding Judge then allowed
a writ OF error by which the ed TO the
Supreme Court, and in the time the sentence
sequent ON the verdict was delayed. Tina tribunal
viewed and affirmed ali the decisions OF the Court OF Oyer
and erminer, which court then performed its remaining
duty by rendering final judgment The accused then again
demanded writ OF error, with view to obtain
sderaton by the Supreme Court and the event OF an add
adudcaon then the record for revision
TO the Court Tor the Correction Of Errors Such writ
could only be aowetby Circuit Judge Justice OF the
supreme Court, or the Chancellor. The Circuit Judge
who tried the cause the Chancellor and OF the JUS
tees of the Supreme Court with the Of his
associates have severay refused allow OF error
and the accused now appeals TO the Executive authority
Tor its interposition.
and sustained by array Of influence, unusual
such occasions which fail - awaken the appreben
sons 1.-THE conscientious and the sympahies OF the hui
name. ..t.
The subject is supposed to involve the following nqu
rlcs: q ...r
ist Whether any error in law has occurred in the trial
and conviction.
2dly. Whetherhe conviction contrary to evidence
3dy whether the prisoner is proper subject Tor Gle
meacy.
In regard to first of these questions the
by no means prepared to that he not bound to abide
by the decisions OF the supreme Court Ii is the right of
that tribunal expound the laws, and their expositons
conclusive upon every other department OF govern
ment until overruled by higher judicial authority The
Governor does not constitute appellate tribunal to
view the proceedings the errors, aud
modify the Judgements OF coua u Gather civil or crmi-
nal jurisdiction. Neverlheiess the prdonng power
might properly he exercised go save Convicted person
from the consrqnrnceso pTVatoA o any legal right
form OF drsnCe resulting either from accident or FROM
neglect prejuAce misconduct by judiciIi officers.
The accused plains thai sat OF error has been
Justly denel ami il Therefore becomes necessary 10 eX
,rnile the grOgaas on which It was demanjrd
When proceeding TO the trial the Court y! Oyer and
Termi1er dscoy rel that there was deficiency OF I'M
biased jurors aud hersupon ordered that three hundred
persols should be -immonei Alter the order had been
executed the acc ID opqlei for list OF the tnree hun
dred pssOn a also 10 be allowed two or three days to
make inqu l.acI llnS then' Inc request was DE-
MED. Tn IEaN.l ware that any statute, rule
or custom iI.. was violated by the de-
cision.
The accused o.. lie panel Of three hun.
dred persons ...luds, all OF which
ruled by the Court TO val First-Because the number
too large. But within the discretion 0i
Court TO determine how many should be summoned and
the result showed that the number selected was large
enough Secondly-Because only two days we're al
lowed the Sheriff to the order. II neverthe
less executed Thirdy-Because the Sheriff h al
nshed the counsel for the accused with copy Of the list
But such duty joined that officer Fourthly
Because the Sheriff selected the three hundred persons by
taking their from the roll Of qualified grand and
petit jurors OF the city and county oil New York. But
the Sheriff not forbidden by law choose the three
hundred persons that manner, and there would have
been just ground Of complaint il he had summoned per
not legally ascer,aned TO possess the qualifications
jurors
The next insisted that the ballots for the forty
five persons the original panel should be drawn aud
exhausted before those containing the of the three
hundred subsequently summoned should be put into the
box But the Court directed otherwise. After drawing
all the ballots there deficiency of juror and
when further person was summoned the accused re-
quired that ballot containing that persons should
be put into the box with those OF the orthve hrst sum
moned who had not appeared when called. The Court
overruled the request. The person so last summoned
found not partial and set aside The accused
then insisted that those among the fortyfve first
moned who had not appeared should be again called but
Court awarded an order to summon another person
and the al then summoned being found Impartial
was received as jnror No irregularty occurred in
these proceedings. ir aa1
the ccused and in which watch belonging to the de-
ceased had been discovered, produced. The Court
overrued objection, and admitted testimony prove
the contents ofthe trunk The decision seems to have
been reasonable, and harmony win the rules OF EVIL
dence. "a rrir.r .aah|
It was proved that all the wounds on the person Of the
deceased, except one, might have been made with
Ratchet The Court admitted testimony designed to hew
that the wound might have been effected by the dis
charge OF pistol One count in the indictment charged
that death produced with Ratchet another charged
that it inflicted with some unknown instrument The
evidence, III
PROFESSIONALLY proper under the last count. tl r..
The remains of the deceased having been exhumed
during the trial, the head produced in Court with
greater certainty. The proceeding, although deemed
by the accused necessary and proper and
sanctioned by the law OF evidence. H
Caroline NJ Henshaw, witness for the accused, during
her direct examination testified that she cohabited with
him and he theeupon offered prove her good character
for veracy to rebut adverse presumption sup
posed TO result from the fact thus disclosed The District
Attorney objected but at the time admitted that the
witness had given her evidence with an intention to es
tfy only hetruth The Court thereupon very properly
declined TO receive evidence Of the
Of witness who had not been mpeached by the prosecu
ton, and whose truthfulness had been conceded
The 4th Section of Article l, Title ?, Chapter I,
Part a of the Revised Statues is in the following
words -
Such homicide is excusabIc when committed
BY accident and misfortune, lawfully correcting
child or servant or in doing any other lawful act by
lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution and with.
out any unlawful intent or
40. By accident and misfortune the heat of passion
upon any sudden and sufficient provocation upon
sndden combat, without any undue advantage being
TAKEN and without any dangerous weapon being used,
and not done in cruel or unusual manner"
The accused objected to the charge Of the Court because
the Judge did instruct the Jury that the words By
accident and misfortune in the second subdivision OF
the section were 10 be rejected as surpusage But no au
thory is found for rejecting the words thus alleged TO be
necessary.
The Court also charged that fthe Jury believed under
the evidence that the homcie effected in cruel
and unusual manner, the would fall within the
last subdivision of the section This portion Of the charge
was CONSIDERED ny the accused but seems to
have been IN harmony with the spirit ws as The letter
Of the law. % r. I
The Court also charged the Jury that homicide 10 be
eTcusabc must lie committed without a design 10 effect
death The counsel for the accused questioned this posi-
ton But the law declares that homicide only be
cusable when 1t happens BY accident aud misfortune and
il cannot 50 happen II II proceed from design.
The ground upon which the accused demandeda writ
Of that the several decisions of the Court OF
Oyer aud Termncr which have been noticed were orro.
But he allowed to present them the con
dcrstion Of the Supreme Court and they solemny
considered and ali med by that tribunal before the udg
nent was rendered against the prisoner by the Court Of
Oyer and Terminer. The Governor not only concurs
with the Court Of Oyer and Terminor and with the SUI
preme Court In the opinion that the objections raised by
the accused unenablc but he sees no reason 20 dis
trust the absolute confidence in the that
cision mapfeaed by the Circuit Judge the Chancellor
and the Justices Of the Supreme Court in their refusal to
allow second writ OF Therefore the denial of
this writ thus demanded does not seem such TO
wards the accused would call for redress by a exer
else Of executive power