The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-05-03
The Drury Case.


deemed their duty ~ sail tho attention of the
an article In pubhs print the sale Of which ad
vertissd in this city during THU trial by hand
bill containing tAs wosds Tho Drury Case lie al
the article which contained gros abuse Of counsel
nged IN the cause and passages tending 10 the inmi
dation OF witnesses. There we're pointed reflections
made upon several witnesses examined for the defence
particularly Mr.. Robert horri and Miss Drury, sub
stantisly char bem perjury lie did
psis secoun, II any influence that paper pos
seseed or because the jury could bs influenced by IT,
even brought their notice; but it gross at
tempt to interfere with the administration Of Justice to
vily Witnesses before the jury had passed the
crediblty OF their testimony Was it not enough TO
all maiden d,ieacy and Of the highest honor
TO shrink n coming that stand il they TO be
subjected 70 such denunsiston IL might not be Of any
Importance what was said in such scurrilou. print
without circulation and without influence and his OBJ
serFstons we're not made because his client required
protection from its attacks for their (counsels vim
icacn-that they would hnd IN the conscientious dis
,hsrge Of their duty out that the court might that
he witnesses which they csiled upon the stand
subjected to such unparalleled cruelty. "a copy Of the
lalcr handed up to the Court
Mr. Wsrirg considered IL Liz duty to call the
teuton or the Court-snd he would send and ct the
paper.-to all the articles which mad appeared il the
hcc jink Herald since The commencement Of th, trial.
ne aid Eet intend 70 characterze that as scurriious
print his friend MIR Clark had done the Po> Gazette
but se shculd like 70 hay before the Court the articles
ard their rurport lie DID not see the Police Gazette but
- lid always take in and the Herald Every stnr,,
sseoet had been remarked upon and comments had been
a'aie upon the proceedings VI The prosecution.
Dir Whiting here haLa,si up aud pointed out auulcr
article 10 the Posioe GGsse aud gaii they dd ne, com
Pan o. tnen Tor any lnhueuee thy contained, but 5-
cause they wanted 70 see sLch conduct Puuished
Judge oreenwood.-Is Tin, N former issue
MI Wh.tine-No y.ur ii"nor. since this trial cau1-
mencei-threateuing Mr. prury's COUNSEL with per-
honai sioier ce
st Tsriag-Wc don't want to know what he ar
ticlr t.
MIR Whiting If bad TIE example s.; ~ "a
Wednesday, should not have taken notice If il all
The Judge then asked a.. deieudants counsel 60
fpg1nr 10 the bench ana having had the articles pointed
Out t. tho Court anG attr c,merlng for fs Minute
he ssid he hoped tins wpui be The last time he
have occasion to notice ,hs newspaper articles They
~sc ali rNrc,nely inprrr Ia he 1rorress IN the rse
Ia, II min
sa Tar as was compatible ~ safety, that liberty
girto for thu purpose VI e,vrg the minds of the peo
pie sad 1t 10 be regretted that any class
pslers ehouii be found administer to the tastes aud M
mu Ate the lad passions an f. ngs Of the lower classes
Is Court dbl not particuiarze any paper papers.
and they left II to all To stcJ what papers within
the cssss they referred 10 Al law. try had the
right I. punish such attacks Tor contempt. but,
b. Led before said this rgh; had been narrowed down
ne statute which only gave them po"er to punish
for faise reports With Regard comments unless the
pr' cent or IN any way brought them before the
gTy Nth view TO influence them, they did think
sa"rt he done. 1t was always useless. They felt
~ the-' att mpts, both hr side the other to
:" utterly futile as they had The most unlimited con
idece in heinegrity aud Intelligence Of that jury Il
sD9 statements r.ade tlify witnesses
sei Vas not there the REMEDY 10y They had by in
ica.t at. They trusted there would be further
cet~ttE % slude to the subject
Nj Cask observed that the tendency u these attacks
49, 70 ntinlidate the wtnrsses
The Court said that certainly was highly improper
1ls we're Of opinion lhst f witness there was in po
r'i'n 20 state that he elt niimdated by theuat the
srtctts had such an ehect-it would be such inter-
i'rDee nth the eoure Of justice asi the Court would
w C,ark said IL surely equally il had the
se' Of intinidstns ~itisess aud keeping him away
lae Court said II that shown, they had undoult
e6,y tac power 20 motto, it, aud with repetition the
ps a the court that there would be no necessity for
Ccsts Who has been examined a witness wished 4
explain r., from report hc had read ia the T5bH.
sss sud Irtss to Mr. DruIy, wier, he had
tIO- dice Until they bad c'De into court,
Tie Court ss:d that lhey thoroughly understood hi
eyilcncc.
Mr. clar would proceed read the stipulation (Which
riud' to in Mr. Taylor evidence but the original
Il which then ia Court) entered into between
Mr. DnTy aud the Iarurancc corpauics' 10 shoN that
81 private rights had b. ~ sttrd and that ne t1uada-
tiou for the seizure hy smith II Mr. DrurJ pro-
perry preceding totally uucxgmplnd ia modern times
aud Dir Taylor recalled to tetfy in respect to IL
previous 10 this paper being drawn ~. This dated
81 January, lsie Mr ,ark here IN answer to the
CotT planned that the and seizure were IA 80
vcmt.r. lsip, nearly a year af er this settlement.
wrne~ continued-iher- weIs two suits pcnding--one
- the htn and the other rs the Protector Insurance
Company; that by the frs ectof bad bcen tired am
vrgict rendered for Mr. Drury, but case had been pre-
IsFed IN order to obtain trial anu pendine tis
uere sa~ proposition fo general settlement lie az
remember which side th came from bat va ~
tied there hould b. but that settlement was not
Mr tialk-Dy Mr. prury il wa
itne< continu,d-No. II was agreed there should
b. general and mutu! rcaes givta am tFiore thy-t
rtsF, delivered The wtness Jaw ana identified the
pr.rrty snd nronT ht rglr'in 'ut ~ y recovery!
Mr C!ark--Wh ich soit J. now pending
witnuSs-Ye.
Dir Garland to Which they can plcai their re.sose-
w.llc,B--A.d our answer w.d b. that 4 va irtoda-
Mr Clark-SO~ id ~, Mr Drury siSn AMI deliver
tas.s-Ihs rcea~e Wa bssught down ~ Warner.
NJ Brusy igned and I'm : vith me but never de-
' n, Z GS ha ibss w. r 81. va s VIII you
tAsr attorney!
1F clark ala that what vas agreed - done equity
prrsrncd TO - dorc, aid no doubt wctdd coint'l :
Tbs dur, iii d, kuov tha, where ,hery 49,
gr Cask-w,ll tint i another question CTo H. VII
re.s n Mr. Smith 10 ~! evcuts haa thea ~ .isht y
authority trom sou & .npeach the sgr'omcut
mia ~ AZ war,pe--qhe Silver which b.sa~
st ii, police rite collection 4 Oh silver heavy
ifsbh -i's'r ~ith The si,ns marx N \ L ,ryngd
a. tr nj tlIancous mixture tarre ~es~ shc ltsl-
on 81 ~ did not thnk ;ir bruIy's
~ wadrg-NtL about g. .eWeiry
NJ waring explained that they had called S.. Dr1ry
Who testified at This her aui u meant eye.
reiuttirs evidence u ie od not 80 = dciatn ~
fhc coot aid Z i VIZ, r,butilus eva ne i ~.
go, q ol.,r, aut oigectea -
CRurd ou. and DO Taylor iesred by Us 's'rns 4"
r., lusln a. att udaucs1
EoI,rt { Csr,T0sn called and sworn We. anaarh.i
a. thc y uth D,.trct dice Esex MARKET Ao@ ~,
nenbertd the ~ uis Il fsrlun affe.i VS. -t4a1
inc ~ the ucr = ioryth und haauety talking
vita tst other ofscsr- INV puc-l yea Thompson ana
F8tf lam ming Aleng Il at9a eight el',A nv
fsuhain u Tr.u hl eut tLfc, lsys 4 .-ssrt ~rnt pa"
trt evening dosn = far 81 r-e II Delepcey .rert
fA4ptre tlrm. ku,v them tath thry sent a .sr
IN, usrou luaw lin aell 81 DAD ls.Noa h.I, ny &.
clost sbd up saw b. face, did tae ether. theif
samuel isowu rud ltel"-s LthE. Dom 't .1
I nsh ptr.et Telce. i VIA. about tbr.c quarter GO
4etfam the Jstklcu f,rry teiieyrsiH ltasnamt va
srrrel1l a. tlU ctTntr In nutrN ptN ptA1cst strt 1.
sIoui s,r - ~ lille n frgpI tBat ~ Houston 49,.
about THREE hlaoas, y, iad sen fuag,F.au about =
month ttns- The. ~ Er.a Mn hl attention 81 tis
night u tic arrest va dlsrn y .hea by rc.nt meg
stross e. Thompson Lb 80. ntiuu va r.called ~ u
% noti morning al ths = ii VerIt SUI T. Henli'ns'