The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-05-18
AN IMPORTANT LIBEL SUIT,
Growing out OF the Delaware Trials for
Murder.

Growing out OF the Delaware Trials for
Murder.
Mitchell Sanford Counsellor at Lao, Thomas "A.
Deryr an editor Of paper at Albany
This suit to be tried before the Circuit Court
nth and 18th Of May Robert d. watson of Albany was
counsel for the defendant and the defendant also himself
was permitted to address the jury Tremaine, Mitchell
for the plaintiff The charge made against counse or
Sandford by the editor, was, in substance that he was
unsafe, unfit, and unreliable counsel and that he
abandoned and sacrificed the rights and interests of his
client John Van Steenburgh who tried and convict
dence given in the case Of Van secnburgh was introduced
as part of the testimony in this lawyer by the
name Of Stanton, introduced who testified that the
reputation Of Mr. Sanford was, that he was unsafe
counsel Upon being with regard to who
had said Mr. s. unsafe counsel he testified that
Malbonc Watson had said SO. Three or four counsel
sworn, who testified to about tho thing. f. s.
,r VINO ao 50 aI ia. witness IN
testified that the Hon. Mr. Sanford did not apply to have
the cause OF Van Steenbugh put to another circuit
nor yet stay OF proceedings, with view to have the
trial changed to another county, that the excitement
great against all Of the prisoners at Delhi
Mr. r. d. WATSON opened the cause TO the jury, the
part Of the defence and in summing up the cause pre-
sened strong points Of law He presented the
high order Of legal ability He exhibited perfect fami-
liarty with the statutes.
The points Of law somc of which are below) he pre-
prcmc Court and perhaps by the Court OF Errors bill
of exceptions, with view to carry the cause up to
SON The question OF law presented in the I'd point of
law below, by Mr. Watson, is beyond all question the
true law Of the land For, as was well urged by Mr.
Watson by the language Of the sh section of the act Of
ls45, called the disguise act" any person convicted
Of being disguised with offensive weapons or for any
other misdemeanor, shall be imprisoned in jail, fined
imprisoned in the State prison and in the revised
statutes, the word felony" is defined to be act for
being assembled in disguise may may not be felony
according as il is punishable in the State prison not
and if il not felony, then Van seenburgh guilty
onl Of m
MIR. II. D. WATSON requested the Court to charge the
jury follows -
Mr. Steele was killed in Delaware yet that in admitting
that murder had been committed when, far his
ed the life Of Van steenburgh when he should not have
admitted any thing more with regard to his client than
manslaughter.
ID That by the 7th section Of the act of ls45 being
assembled and in Disguise by the act itself made
misdemeaor and not felony and if not felony, then Van
Steenburgh was guilty Of manslaughter and not Of MUIR
3d. As from the evidence it does not appear that Van
noi OF went 70 the place wheIe steele Mos
by some one unknown yet no safe, reliable or fit coun-
sell" should have admitted that to Van Stecnburgh it
was murder but manslaughter
4h. AS persons assembled Van Steenburgh, might
might not have been guilty Of felony, though death
made against him under the law of ls45 any other
law, and no counsel should have admitted murder.
9Th. As the excitement in Delhi great that
impartial trial of Van Steenburgh could be had before
jury man could have been safe, fit reliable
sell VINO dld not move to have the trial OF Van Stecn
burgh postponed who did not get stay of proceed
ngs with view to apply to the Supreme Court to have
the trial changed to county where an impartial trial
might be had.
9TH As the verdict of the jury, Of murder in the
Of Van seenburgh contrary to law, to say the
least there great doubt about the law safe
sci should have obtained stay of proceedings with
view to obtain trial when the excitement had pass
cd away, and when an impartial trial might be had
It'll As from the evidence before the jury it appears
that the distress warrant under which Steele acted
issued without the affidavit of the landlord, her agent
or receiver and the law requires this those who acted
under the warrant were and although Steele
was killed. yet far Van Steenburgh concerned
It was only manslaughter.
9Th. The witness, Lawyer Stanton, testfcs that law
yers Powers Day Pruyn Van Week say reputa
and the whole of the evidence this point goes to
show this and as the opposite side have not brought for
ward these men to contradict this it is in evidence that
all Of these lawyers Powers Day Pruyn and Van Week.
concur, that the general reputation of Mr. Sanford
lawyer is that he unsafe unfit and unreliable
sell and that the Defence therefore, have made out their
case.
9TH That from the evidence and the whole case the
alleged hbeous matter nothing than fair cri-
cism the part Of Mr. Devyr editor and simply do.
ing his duty with regard to the conduct Of the Hon. Mr.
Sanford, on the trial OF Van Stcenburgh.
10th As those who lived upon leased land reject
by the rors jurors the case Of Van Steenburgh
appears by the evidence of Mr. Edgeron and
on that jury who had stated that all Of the
who at the place where Steele fell, guilty
Of murder sale and reliable counsel could and would
have obtained trial on that and other grounds
llth In not allowing, the trial Of Van Steenburgh,
witnesses to be who would testify that Steele fired
first Mr.. s committed great error
18TH As the Examination OF Edgerton, he tes
tilted he thinks that Steele fired first Mr. Sanford should
have urged that Van Steenburgh was guilty of man
slaughter.
The Court refused so to charge in most instances and
the jury brought in a verdict OF $500.