The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-11-23

who it expected, would take charge of the case
The tso
the ground that he entitled to notice for the sp
picston Of the writ OF habeas corpus but the statute
on this com plant and stated that the object of
applying for the writ was to procure the examination
be bad before Judge Edmonds On Tuesday, the Grand
Jury found an indictment The state of facts then,
is this The District Attorney wishes to amend their
bills Of Indictment have since been found. The
question: then is there any machinery At work. is
custody be deprived Of the right of examination
according to the statute? NOW" said MIR Clarke,
my views these the facts too are conceded
these The prisoners were in confinement before the
complaints sent to the Grand jury Mt all events
there was commitment, which Ia returned here on
the hd5eas corpus Being thus In custody. they
entitled to an examination. Such examination may
be Of beneht to the prisoners II is designed to enable
what Is the evidence against him in order to ascertain
whether 1t Is sufficient to found q commitment upon.
Now if there is any machinery by which magistrate
can deprive prisoner Of the right Of examination, by
making all these refusals we want to knowit."
Judge EpMos,s-Mr. McKeon, you ask to amend the
return TO the hdbeds corpus
MIR McKEoN-No, the officers give the return.
Judge EpMoNps-Yes but 1t Is a serious question
with me whethera can discharge the prisoners alto
Mr. GRAnAM-Your honor, suppose even that MIR.
Suppose that he is entitled to discharge in the
first place. he s not entitled To discharge all the
commitments, for Drury is held on two other indct-
ments also.
Judge EDMoNDs, after reading the provisions of the
statute said there was very important principle in
prosecutor prevent the statutory examination by
procuring indictments and thus deprive the party Of
the benefit Of an examination
Mr. CLAkKE-Yes, and of the ha5eas corpus. too.
MIR. GRAHAM-Yes, but If the Grand Jury, In the
exercise Of its undonbted right chooses to enter
examination, we can't preventit. Here have these
facts. First, the Grand Jury indicted the parties;
secondly the parties pleaded; and thirdly they
committed by order OF a competent court The cues.
pris
from subst qusnt legal custody for the party wishes
TO be discharged from all custody the plain answer is
that be has been committed by competent court and
therefore, cant see any practical use in gopg into
the right of party to an examination.
writ the question arises whether practically there is
any use in making this motion.
GRAHAM said that since the ad osrnmento OF the hear
ing on the hsbsos corpus, the prisoners have been
mitted by petent court on proceedings before It,
Judge EDmosps-ies, but IT Is in refere nee to the
return, and for me to say whether this amendment
shall be made.
Mr.. CLARKE-I have a word to say II liberty is
worth anything 1t Is worth few words In examining
it The question present is this, and wish your
Honor to determine it prisoner is arrested say
msgistI ate and placed In CELL his family denied
access to him he If finally permitted TO see his coun
sci but all information about the offence with which
he Is charged is denied to him He Is entitled to
exsminationto have the witnesses for the prosecu-
ton examined in his presence and seems he cannot
have it, He IL deprived of all the advantages which
preliminary examination gives him. These men are
accused OF charge on which an Indictment Is found.
An examination refused and the only remedy left
the hdLsas corpus unless that relief swept away
by the subsequent proceedings Now said MIR. Clarke,
don't believe there exists any means by which such
valuable writ a. the hob,as corpus can be vitated
Judge EDMoNDs-I don't think the matter Is sufh
GENTLY before me to decide upon It, for II involves a
very important principle neither oil the facts be-
fore me, for this is simply motion to amend the re-
turn
CLARKs-we wish to get this question up, and have
II decided by your Honor
Judge EDMosDs-Then the matter had better be pre-
sentsd before fully may be able to discharge the
prisoners from the first commitment but not altogether
from custody.
GNABAn-The difficulty with my friend on the other
side IL this how much better Is he oil II his client 10
discharged on the original commitment, when two
commitments have since been made by order Of the
court, and
Judge EpMoNDs-But suppose the counsel for the
prisoner don't agree with you In the practical benefit
of my decision
GRABAm- But II the party is held two commit
any Of them The question 10 Is the party in lawful
hrst the keeper OF the prson will at say, don't
others"
Mr. CLARK1-The court may come to the conclusion
that all those proceedings void and II Is this
have this practical result that all these subsequsbt
proceedings intended to cheat him out Of the right
which the law gives him.
The adjourned TO this afternoon 10 order to
allow the parties to bring the matter fully before the