New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-11-14
o,Councr and Van stcenbersh'. Case.

Under Sheriff of Delaware County, in the month oil
Angus, last In the town Of Andes, near the house
and premises of Moses Earle On the trial II ep
ncored tim, Charlotte D. vcrplanck, of the City oil
Ncw.York had leased the farm and premises occu-
MED by Moses Earle TO him AT rent or an annuity
of S32 vcer-ihai the rent was behind and unpaid
from the first day of May, l43, TO toe first day OF
May ls45, and that the amount due vas eo1-'Ae
following facts farther appeared
AZ June. ls45-A Landlords Warrant was IL
sued BY P P w right, Lawyer, on the request oil
a Young man by the name OF John Allen. TO collect
the rem, due from Moses Earle John A!cn. Tue
Young man. made the affidavit of the rent being due
17h Juiy-Levy was made on 1sric properly
on his farm and premises Andes by the Sheriff or
his Deputy.
o3d Juiy.-Propcrty advertised for sale, which
was to take place the goth July
29tA Juiy-Property sci up for sale a; Earle's
premises. bu, no bidders appeared-the sale was
now adjourned 10 the 1th day OF August.
7M Apgrst-Steee the Under Sheriff, Wright
the LAWYER, went 10 Earles in Andes 10 sell the
property levied on-the property consisted OF hogs
and cows-theywere running g, large on the farm
the parties went the farm and drove them up 20
the barn ward or near il Steele the Deputy Sheriff.
carried pistol on the ground this pistol was load
ed with ball and powder; it was taken out, raised
in The hand of Steele and fired at the Anti Rent men
before after, at the very instant OF time they shot
at him and wounded him. The testimony is not re-
ported very distinctly this point. and indeed the
witnesses do not appear 10 exactly and mnute!y
know about the matter from what does appear II
is evident Steele frs, drew his pistol raised ii and
presented il to the Anti. Rent men before they tired
JOHN ALLEN was sworn as a witness on the part OF
the people; he testified on The part OF the people
when Van Steenbergh was tried that he was the
agent of Charlotte d. Nerplanck, the landlord,
though these were hot his exact words, 1t was the
fair import of his testimony he stated that ne re-
sid at iDra |
al Delhi in Delaware Co; that he collects rents tor
his father; that witness swore out the Landlord
Warrant 9Th June last; he went to the Office OF r.
P. Wright, Esq. requested said Wright TO draw the
Distress Warrant made the affidavit himself. This
witness was again called the part OF the people on
the trial Of Edward O'Conner and sworn, and on
his cross animation stated that he witness had no
written authority TO collect rents for Charlotte D.
VerpIanck, nor had she ever given him express or
ders to collect her rents if any consent was given
it silent consent
"Earle's rent had been heretofore paid i'll New
York-thc witness father is the agent OF Charlotte
D. Verplanck TO collect her rents-he has written
power OF attorney from her as agent" This tesii-
monv may not be literally true IN all lis particulars
thou oh we have no doubt il substantially correct
We have taken from the reports OF the trial IN the
newspapers as they appeared when Van Siecn-
bersh and O'Conner were tried, in September and
October last.
We now call the attention ofthc public TO the Re
OF the stale OF Nt,W-l Orh I'D
the collection ofrenis-pagc Alp, sec. =
No officer shall proceed 10 make distress Tor rent UNI
less there be annexed TO- delivered with the warrant
" of Distress affidavit made by the LANDLORD for
whose benefit the distress is to be made, or by ms
AGENT or receiver, before officer authorized 10
administer oaths, specifying the amount OF rent due,
Z" and the time for which it accrued.
An agent cannot delegate his authority Com
YIN On Contracts p. 81 l Governs Treatise. p. -
And the authority of an agent or attorney must be
strictly pursued or il is void. Waving the ques-
ton entirely for the present whether Charlotte d.
Nerplanck stood in the relationship oil landlord to
Moses Earle tenant, and waving the question
whether there was right 10 distrain for rent under
any circumstances the part oil Charlotte
D. Vcrpanck; it will be seen that this process call
ed the Land ord's Warrant under which the Depu-
" Sheriff Steele acted, was totally vold-neliner
the landlord nor his agent receiver had made the
affidavit required by law. II they had not The
agent the LAWYER and the deputy sheriff were all
trespassers. They had no right by law to go on
the premises TO take away Earles cattle-thcy
were wrong doors. And here we Will say that the
officer was not in the faithful execution OF his Office
when he was shot; he not an oitlcer oil the law
in the faithful discharge OF his duty ana in Jealous
execution of the laws Of the land he was voun,
,aer in L;gh kondod t-osPaan- Tho low, imposed
no duty to execute that warrant.-6th HILLS Re
ports p. CIV ebber u.s. Sherman; Isl Hills tie
ports, p. 2s6-Jerman u.s. Waggener.
We are not inquiring what crimes O'Connor and
Van Slcenbergh had been guilty OF, nor whether
they ought to be punished, or how much, any far
ther than the question Is concerned, whether they
have been rightly indicted and convicted OF murder.
We do not countcnance or encourage the idea that
men are to disguise and arm themselves on any &C.
cason in time of peace and when the laws, if right
fully executed are abundantly able and sufficient TO
protect the rights of all parties. By reference 10
Hale, Hawkins, Foster, Gritty, and all the writers
on Criminal Law, we find that they define Murder
to be the killing of human being in the peace OF
(-oJ he inu m
thought either express or implied. Now the ingrc-
dents of murder are, by these writer's declared 10
be
lst. A killing OF n human being in his life
I'd The person who kills, must do 1t with malice
aforethought prepcnse.
Sd The person killed must be in the peace OF God,
and in the peace OF the people.
4th The person killing must be free agent, able
10 discern good and evil
The language and charge in the indictment against
the prisoner, is, that he made assault then and
there being feoniousy and of his malice aforethought
in and upon said deceased in the peace Of God and
said people.
II is true indictments may be varied in their
phraseoogy and charge directly that the prisoner did
commit murdcr-but then the question occurs what
is murder If any of the four ingredients arc want
ing il is not murder but manslaughtcr or eXcusablc
or iusifablc homicide. Lord Hale says thay ii
man comes to take my goods as trespasser may
Justify the beating OF him in the defence of my goods
but II Kill nm III Inc defence Oh my EOode,N Is
manslaug hter.-Hac's Pleas of the Crown, is6 p.
Upon an Indictment for nanslaugher it appeared
that the deceased and his servant insisted on placing
in the prisoners barn. which she refused TO a.
low-they exerted force. scutie ensued in which
the prisoner received blow in the breast, where
upon she threw stone al The deceased, upon which
he fell down and was taken up dead
-Hollroyd Judge said the case fails in two points.
1t is not proved that the death was caused by the
blow and if il had been appears that the deceased
received it in an attempt TO invade the prisoners
barn against her will.
She had right TO defend her barn and to employ
such force was reasonably and necessary for that
purpose She was not answerable for any unfortu-
nate accident that might happen in SO doing-the
prisoner was acquitted 5 case Levin c.
C.lGl. Reported in Roscoe's Criminal Evidence G43.
We read that if an officer is killed in the lawful
execution OF his duty by the party resisting him it
murder
II he is killed when acting under void or Illegal
Authority OF his jurisdiction, it is manslaugh
ter, or excusable homicide according the circun!-
stances Of the casc-Ro.eOe's Criminal Evidence,