The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-08-27


These eases were before the Court on wrts Of
habeos corpus, the defendants having been CON-
milred on warrants issued by Justice ofthe Peace
Ii seems that oaths were made charging them
with having stolen certain property. On these
oaths warrants issued, the defendants ar
rested brought before the magistrate, and, without
hearing, committed to prison. II might he i'm
Piled, and is admitted, that the offence, If any, was
committed in the State OF Virginia.
Several objections have been raised to the regu-
lariry of the warrants of commitment,
That it is not stated where the offence was
committed.
2. That the ownership of the property stolen is
not sufficiently averred.
The defendants have also given evidence to show
the irTegulanty OF the proceedings, and ON what
circumstances the charge was founded The oatn
was made. and note of the facts stated on the
docket of the justice, but not signed by the depo-
nent.
We are of opinion that the whsle proceeding is
very loose and irregular. The warrant of com
mlIment should state whose property was stolen,
and where the offence was committed Had that
proceeding been regular, we should not have
looked beyond it, except when called on to tx the
amount OF bail, and possibly 10 see whether any
gross mistake had been committed by the magis-
trate.
The defendants have called the party making
this charge, and also The man whose property was
alleged 10 have been stolen, TO show the circum-
stances under which il was stolen ; and from the
evidence, it that three horses were taken in
the State of Virginia, probably by the three pri-
soners who were proved to be absconding slaves
two Of them belonging TO Mr.. Taylor They, 1t is
stated, took with them two of their masters
horses, with saddles and brides, rode them about
thirty miles, and turned them loose.
The slaves were pursued, and the horses found
where they had probably been abandoned. In the
case of William, called John Strange, there is no
evidence that the horse was stolen, although il was
alleged that William sode of horse belonging TO
Mr. Littlejohn We have no proof of MIR. Little
Johns horse having been stolen at all From aught
that there appears, he might have been lent. We
must therefore dismiss William without further in
committing him. Several questions have been
raised by the fendanfs counsel
First: That the proceeding could only be sus-
tanned under the act of Congratulations, the
warrant was illegslly issued on an oath made in
Pennsy vania. We have no doubt that warrant
was improperly issued, as the oath should have
stated that the crime was committed In Virginia,
and the defendants had fled from justice But we
do not agree 10 the position assumed, that the oath
must be made under the act of Congress. When
so made, and properly certified, when the indic
ment is found in another State, and properly authen-
tcsted, we consider 1t conclusive, and we have no
right TO inquire beyond it, But when fugitives are
pursued into Pennsylvania, We consider il strictly
legal TO make an oath before officer OF the law
here-haye warrant issued-the party arrested
and committed, in order to await requsitlon OF
the Governor of the State from which he fled.
IL is not so much matter of comfy as police
regulation of our own, TO get clear of dangerous
dellrquenis We do not sustain the proceedings
for the benefit of the'Siate whose laws violated,
alone, but for our own safety. We are well aware
that the legislation of Congress is exclusive In many
and II The rights OF Virginia alone were coa-
cerned, she could not urge US TO do more than
carry into effect the Congress onal provision. Bot
every State has right to protect It's own citizens
from the feloDs OF other States; and If We choose
to permit our magistrates TO exercise such jursdic-
ton on an oath made under our own laws, the
fugitive charged with felony cannot lawfully COM
: The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in O.
page 536-decided that their act of Assembly, au-
thorizng similar proceeding, did not conflict with
the federal constitution and the custom AT COM
mon law Of Pennsy lvania, on the same subject, is
equally valid; deprived Of such power, large por-
tion of The most dangerous criminals would escape
punishment
: The only question left open is as TO the guilt or
innocence OF Samuel Wilson and George Brooks
An attempt has been made To prove hat these men
in this county at the time the alleged larceny
was committed, for the purpose OF showing gross
mistake in the charge, and raising doubts as TO the
identity.
We have no doubt, whatever, that these men
slaves belonging 10 Mr. Taylor, and fled at the
time and in the manner stated by him. We have,
also. no doubt that they took the horses, saddles
and brides; for, although there is no direct proc
of the fact, yet the men and the property dIsap-
peared from the same place at the same time, and
The horses are found in the direction the men
would pass 10 reach this place, where they were
arrested; but the only point OF any doubt IS rs TO
the intention with which they were taken. When
one man clandestinely carries OIL the property OF
another in the night time, the fair presumption is
that he intended 20 steel II; bat that presumption
may be repelled by circumstances. The party
charged may show that he took The article Tor a
Temporary puTpose-not with the intention TO steal;
but merely to use, intending 10 return IT, or leave
IL where the owner might get II again.
The defence mainly depends on their being
slaves endeavorng TO escape from theh masters,
and using their horses fer that purpose, and not
aninus fprandi. IL there was any reasonable
doubt as to the intention, II would be our duty to
send the cases TO jury Of the State OF Virginia;
but We have none and IL the men were on their
trial in this court we should ne obliged to instruct
the jury to acquit them. The rule OF law is settled
in numerous cases, and at various penods OF our
judicial history, that, If property Is taken, even
but merely to use, It is not larceny. If probable
cause TO believe these men guilty was made out,
as committing magistrates we should retain them
for Trial bat we do not think that any crime has
been proven against then, and that the taking was
a mere trespass.
NO proof has been adduced as to what laws exist
in Virgin ia the subject Of the abduction OF pro-
perry by slaves but we take u for granted that, ia
the absence of evidence, they are governed
by the rules Of common law. u the rule II more
stringent in this State, 1t should be shown by the
sccusefs.
Another point has been raised, That the Court
will not permit those men 10 be arrested, as they
have been fraudulently seized, imprisoned, and
brought into Court on a criminal charge, for which
there ives no foundation whatever
We are by no means prepared TO say that this
charge was frauduently preferred; but, on the con-
trary, two OF the defendants, Wilson and Brooks,
can only escape trial, and probable conviction,
from the fact that they were slaves, endeavoring
60 escape from the custody Of their master, and
merely used the horses 10 aid them IN their object.
We should not permit Mr.. Taylor, or any other
man, 20 seize his property in open court, which
would be a contempt; but he has an undoubied
right to take these men wherever be- can lay his
hands on them, peacesbly, and II violence or dis
turbance ensue, those persons are criminany re-
sponsihlc who cause IL.
We have power 10 prevent the abuse Of legal
process, but we have no legal authority TO prevent
The recapture Of these men, or any other slaves by
the owner, when or wheresoeyer he may think
proper exercise his right, except In the face OF
the court
rsI, h. therefore, ordered that the said Samuel
Wilson George Brooks, and William (alas john
Strange, be discharged from confinement.
EXTENSIVE Fp.rns nv LAND SrkCrt,roRs.
~ Of fraud. by certain