The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-06-23
Before Judge Ogden.

POSTPONED.
Before Judge Ogden.
MoRRIs CiRcuir CorRT, MoRRisrowS. June 81, 1851.
The state against Lambert Norton for Pujwy-At the
sitting Of the court this morning the Judge called the
case Of Lambert Norton President Of the State Bank
at Morris and indicted for the offence Henry
Deyton the cashier tried for wu and corrupt perjury
during the week and convicted on Friday evening.
Mr. Pennington, counsel for Mr. Norton, said he hal
an application TO make to the court The wife Of defen
dant residing New Haven in the State ofConnectcut
in the agony of death being seized with disease
which her physicians declared to be incurable. Mr.
then read the affidavit Mr. Norton and the certificate
ofDr Sprague, in confirmation Of his statement. He
added that he informed by his son, Mr. William
Norton is a witness in this and went from here
yesterday TO New York that since the certificate de-
spatched the character Of the intelligence was not alter
ed. Though it not absolutely necessary that Mr.
Norton should be here this being the trial Of record
sent down from the Supreme Court his i'm
porsnt in order to advise with counsel In the
Of the trial
Mr. Little said the State did not wish to press forward
any Is trial under such circumstance
The Court then postponed the till the next cir
cult. which will be in September
The STATE against Lambert Norton, Darid Sdndyson M
ham Thompson, Samuel Doy, Joseph Cutler aud Jgcot
n, S,a,s Bsk ar MdrrisyThis case having been called
on, the Hon. MIR Miller read affidavit Of Jacob VI.
King. and certificate from DR. Garfield, to the effect
that def ndant who old and feeble has been very Ill
for some time Of "A neuralgia affection. and Is unable to
attend in court both the affidavit and counsel declared
IN necessary MS defence
He therefore applied Tor postponement Of the case as
regarded this def ndan aud that could nst be done
postponemt Mt Of the whole case.
MIR. Elmer the Attorney General-We feel disposed to
submit the matter to the die erection Of the Court For
my part. cannot how the record can be sepa
rated without the order Of tue Supreme Court 1t comes
down here upon joint issue and all the defendants
be tried together BY the Of ALL separate
trials might perhaps be had but the difficulty Is that
this would involve two trials instead Of one,
Court The same difficulty has presented itself TO me,
II only be done by agreement the case comes down
arteau and INV tna IN tba
order ~ the supreme Court. am not sitting here with
ore ina jurisdiction but Hisi f1ts Judge, and can
not separate the record and cut II up into two parts
suppose that If a sgree II may be done but I would
not hazard the indictment upon my responsibility.
Mr. Asa Whitehead counsel for Col Cuter) said the
presence # Mr King may be important also 70 the other
defendants and this h an additional reason for the post
ponement.
Attorney General Il feel difficulty in the matter
willing that the % Mr.. King should b. struck
cut rather than that there should b. posponement Of
tie whole case IN. certificate avoids saving anything
o. to whether he Il likely 70 b. well next term
Hon Mr Miner-1he defendant can supply that omis-
itn W another affidavit.
CCurt.-Thst would be rather a curious oath. Or
man to swear he will be alive in three six months
since Great laughter by consent the record may be
amended. and E0b IrosCg,a entered a u last term
Mr. Ienuington-f should not f.el AZ liberty in the
sltnce ony client Mr. Norton. e agree to the arrange
mont unles he to- II included IN the nobs prossft
ghe Attorney Gcneral-Then shall leave the respon-
sinility with the Court.
Mr Mir then moved for po;poLement q the
whole
Court The result of this trial u personal interest to
each u the fn6an because each s Interested Ia the
final settlement 4 the cue, ton counsel think y ctn-
lot te fairly tried cannot see how i be pressed IN
justc, % Mr King Who i undoubtedly sick | cannot
entertain application - sever the indictment AM
doubt tie Court would permit tn unless
Under v'ry eNtFaorinaty crcumstahcsR the very ~.
ture ~ the indictment u that l. contains united
charFe-c,m5na,ion-loi action Toe whole record
must T. irofed e - once II the defendants desire
IT. therefore the may have an opportunity II tray rsng
with The hade q this indictment over their heads Bat
Il must le tried In Tie beginning = rsxt term.
Colonel To layer. au4 ~ uccused).
The Court knows that this matter l. ruiuous enough
g. Il IT without any more loss IL and ss II busi.
ness tor mystlf wait 20 have ID ii posed IL that
may ~ eutlpd attend 20 the ntarets n my clients
dott want g. have shade hanging over "a.
Ar Miller then proposed t. ~ ami 80 Nr King and
confer With him e the O. u adopted lie dd -
and b. return said he would waive the application
for pcftrpnement
TI6 case vas then proceeded with ana Mr. stansbo.
rough The ohligng and gentemauy County Clerk then
called over the names II the special jury
Mr. Pennington suggested that Il any Il the jury have
bias or been mixed up With the bank hey should say
20 before they sworn.
Court IL they have lost by the bank
Mr. PenniDgton.-That y what meant
Mr. Little We agree TO that
The following jury we're then sworn
William Carey Cyrus Dixon
Bphfam Young, Peter u DOremus,
Paul y Debou. sely Toupkns
joseph Alexander, Eiias Thompson
benjamin Rome. David Menagh
Aaron d Hudson. Isaac johnson. Jun,
Mr Tbeo Little then opened tho case Cor the state
He said Among the indictments returned by the Grand
Jury in the fpring q 1880 charging the de nd
ants in this with con tracy e. defraud the
stockholders az the state BANK h Morris a which they
directors by erasng from two drafts lying n the bank
the q David sanderson one q the accused on the
evening before the failure Il the bank they knowing that
about fail and therefore releasing sanderson
frtn his liability SOMETHING had been aid about the
anmus a the Grand Jury and h. had intended 70 reply
H. but sufficient o. state that the matter
dd originate with the Grand Jury but referred
T. them BY the Court then sitting
Judge Ogden not aware q that
Mr Little 1t 4 so. The indictment removed by
e1to,ar g he Supreme Court z, the defendants had
Tsrf "a right to DO The ground fir this step the
allegation that no offence in Law had been committed
II the facts avprrtd we're true The Court decided
otherve and sent down the e. BE- tried here The
offence "a II small magnitude, aud Il such that
tie Court orderd special jury e BE- struck 70 try H.
Gentlemen. ! am satisfied that you will give the
the attention II deserves The learned counsel then
proceeded 20 give history Of the bank, and 81 the
IaIlus enac ments Iassed in Ieferepce U III In the