The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-08-16

with the matisl, except, when appealed to by the
gambler, be advised him to refund the money he
had fraudueniiy Won.
Carr. FoRNo's CAsE.-Immediately on the evil
dence W this case being closed on "Wednesday, the
belrd presitiing sent 1t 10 the Mayor. His Honof's
opinion has tIol yet been received.
The PAUL TRIcoU CAsE-Much interest was
felt and many persons attended the Recorders
Court, yesterday morning, owing TO the expecta-
ton that the witnesses in this singular case would
be examined Immediately on the dispatch of the
usual morning business--that business which NAV
be called the Recorders " order of the day." al
though, in a certain sense, il is "new b1sness -
The character of the charge against Trcou was
fully explained TO the Court in the affidavit which
as usual, was read by the District Attorney. That
was the affidavit of Robert Lusher, Deputy Clerk
of the U. S. Court, which declared that the
writing on certain pages of letter. book belonging
to Paul Tricon had been defaced and altered,
while said book was on record, and that he be-
neved that the person who 40 defaced the record
was Paul Trieou.
Tile District Attorney then read from the statute
the penalties for the offence charged, and moved
that the examination of witnesses be ordered.
Mr.. Benjamin thought he could show that the
examination OF witnesses in this case would be an
unnecessary waste of time. He wished to see the
state law relative to the crime charged. He de-
sired TO know if the records of the U. 5. Courts
were in the custody Of the State of Louisiana, or
any records in it. When his client called on him,
dilu explained MS case, ana Lnen tOl0 MIN tdt ne
was TO be tried before the Recorder Of this Munich
pality, he told him that he certainly must have
misunderstood the name of the functionary, and
that the U. s. Commissioner must have been the
official. There was certainly no Jurisdiction here,
and II the present suit is brought under the statute
read from by the District Attorney, it would be the
idlest thing in the world to go farther.
Mr.. Benjamin then showed that while there was
no State statute for the punishment of DETACHMENT
of record, there was a statute of the Territory of
Orleans ha nf rpiro atad
In 1905. He said that all the law in reference to
DETACHMENT, under the Territorial Government
was TO be found in sections 10 and 20 of that stat
ute. He proceeded to read Sec. 10, as follows
persona shall elonousy steal take away alter or asy
or oiherws avoid any record writ other proceed
any judgement shall be reversed, made void take
nS Of % % oy @ e
zanee pal or Judgement in the OF other
such person PERSONS conviction thereof shall pay
4 Of s cou9 5s Wb so at %
& That b ac s not t%S ssa o he
Of any judgement Or judgements, ny Attorney or Attor
noy aa admitted Tor any person Or persons against whom
The marginal note opposite to this section reads
Stealing or altering records etc., of any Court"
Mr. b. said that this a territorial law and
could not apply to the State Of Louisiana. Farther,
the statute says that the punishment shall be
awarded only when DETACHMENT occurs, so that any
Judgment OF the territorial courts might be avoided
OF arrested In this case there was no judgement
Mr. then held up the book said to have been
efaced, and proved that it had never been on record
at all, and was not marked as such. According
to the only mark to be found on it, it had simply
been deposited
Mr.. Benjamin proceeded to read Section 20, as
follows:
Sac 20. find be it further enacted That every person
meRt or matter instrument recorded registry thereof
oao os ana e oS
a. sIa seor or term not more than two years and shall
The marginal note to this section reads @ Steal
ing or altering other Records, etc. of any Court"
Mr.. b. then pointed o 1t the clear distinction be-
tween the two Sections of the territorial statute
Sec 20 does not refer to Records Of Courts at all
refers to the acts Of Public Notaries, Recorders
OF Mortgages, Recorders Of Conveyances, etc; but
not to Courts; While the 18th Section intended to
punish deiacements of Court Records
NOW Mr.. b. was anxious to know under which
oil the two Sections this suit was laid. IL could
not be under the 20th because the affidavit charges
on lricou, the deiacement Of Court Record. 1t
must be under the 18th Section Of this statute then
il under any thing that this suit is laid Ifhe based
ms suit on that Section, there no use in ex-
aiming witnesses for that statute was made for
2territory, not for State. He would call the
District Attorney to a case Of which he was cog
nlzent although II was argued by the Attorney
General. 1t was in character similar to this and
Judge Strawbridge' dismissed the case because
there was State law
The District Attorney took a different view of
this charge from Mr.. Benjamin. He recolected
well the authority quoted, and was surprised at
the decision then given by Judge Strawbridge.
But the cases were not similar. Ia that case
jury had been empanneled, and if there had
been single word wrong in the Indictment the
prisoner would have been entitled to the benefit of
It. But here we are in different situation. The
gentleman says that there is use in nquiTng
whether an offence has been committed. | CON
tend that an offence has been committed 1t is sell
dom the case that afidayits embrace the whole
materials on which charge Of crime may be
based Suppose that an individual il charged with
murder, and that no more than highway robbery
had been committed, would there be no use for in
curry INTO the merits Of such charge! He con-
tended that State laws were entitled TO take cogni-
Zance of U. S. Records as we'll as other u s.
property. Suppose that U. s. building were set
on fire, would not the State be entitled 10 punish
the offender! If the facts in this prosecution are
sustained, 1t VIII give us an instance of man
taking advantage of one offence TO commit still
greater one, just as we have known person, after
robhing house, setting it on fire TO conceal it.
The District Attorney then took up the letter
book that had been defaced, and commended that it
was oil record In order to show that Tricou con-
sidered it a record, and as such, intended to de-
slroy it, he borrowed it from the Clerk of the Uni
ted States Court, and returned it 80 badly defaced
and altered in some places as TO be unintelgible.
Now ons great object of law was to sift out crime
Il
and if the facts sustained that the case will be
sent to the First District Court.
MIR. Benjamin commended that il Paul Tricou had
done all that was charged upon him, there was no
law IN the State TO punish him. 1t might seem
surprising that such is the case, but if State law
TO sustain the affidavit before the Court can be
found, he would take back all that he said on the
subject. He would cite case that might seem
quAIe as remarkable. Some time ago, man was
arrested for committing rape on the high seas and
was acquitted, because there was no law to punish
him. 1t SO happened that Congress had never
passed law saying that DETACHMENT of records is
crime. All that we have on the subject relates TO
territories He hoped that this Court would be of
opinion with Judge Strawbridge that there was no
law in the State TO punish the crime charged
After some little further discussion, the Court set
apartthls morning for the examination of the wit
nssses.
DISPOSAL OF THE CosGRovE CASE. This
charge of perjury took precedence Of the other
tough cases before the Recorder, yesterday morn
ing and surely it was entitled to do so, because it