The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-06-15
Court of General Sessions.

| Before the Recorder, and Aid. Ward aud Denlnan.
JUNE E.-1,7ai for Forgcy-Acquttn of the
cuSed.-The jury assembled, appointed at 10
| o'clock this morning, and the trial Of Edwin Wilbur
was proceeded with Mr.. Hobson was recalled, and
examined at considerable length, as to the language
used to the prisoner at tue time Of the confession
and Mr.. Spencer renewed his argument against the
| ACCESSIBILITY. Justice Osborn was also placed on
the stand, and testified to the substance Of what
Mr.. Hobson said at the examination before him.
| 1t was, that he told the young man that he had
| got himself into a difficulty, and that he had the
| proof against him; and now, if there any miti-
eating circumstances in the matter, and he should
require any favor at his hands, it would be far bet
ter for him to tell the whole TRUTH than to deceive
| any parties.
! The Court, after long discussion, held that the
| confession not such voluntary and free one
the law contemplated and ruled it out:
| witness, (E Graves,) for the defence. did not
| think that the filing up Of the check in tho
prisoners hand writing: and he and another wit
ness spoke to his good general character.
Mr.. Spencer summed up for tho defence. pointing
ont the absence Of all testimony, when the confess
sion, (Which was extorted under the fear of expo
SIRE and disgrace), was stricken out The Assistant
District Attorney submitted the case under the
charge Of the Recorder. His Honor directed them
to discard the admission Of guilt by the prisoner
himself and coninc themselves to the consideration
Of the other points. These were very meagre, con-
sisting principally in the facility which the defend
ant had of committing the offence. The jury, after
an absence of about an hour, returned verdict of
genteel and good looking young man. was then dis
charged, and left the Court with his friends
Charge of Perjury against an Attorney
1n Episode IN The Shirt Case Controrersy.--
James Ferguson, whose litigatons have claimed so
much attention from courts civil and criminal for
the past five or six years, chiefly originating with
the celebrated divorce suit, known as the 'shirt
CASE was placed trial, indicted for falsely
ing before the Court of Special Sessions the 18th
November, 1850 that the present complainant,
George P. Brush, had assaulted him on the 10th
day of March, 1850, on his going to serve him with
n subpoena.
Hon A. l.. Jordan and Hon. +. A. Talmadge ap-
peared for the defence.
Mr. A. O.. Hall opened the case, and read the in
dictment He proceeded to state the circumstances,
showing that the defendant had complained, in the
first Instance, before the police magistrate-hid
then gone to the grand jury, and finally to the
Special Sessions-upon which occasions, as also
in a civil suit, he had sworn to the same state Of
fIcts.
Mr. Jordan objected. None Of these facts were
allie ged in the Indictment, and could not be given
in evidence: he therefore submitted that counsel
ought not to state them in tho opening,
Mr. Hall supposed he had the right to give them
in evidence, and should certainly offer them all.
An element in the crime was the corruptness, or
malice; and the repeated acts of the prisoner in tho
course Of action, was. he commended, not only
competent but most proper evidence of malice, and
he certainly had right to it in his opening.
Mr. Jordan replied, it resolved itself into gues-
ton whether they had the right to give these things
III evidence, anu prove otnor cases against HIS
client The indictment referred to the Specsl
Sessions only, and to that they must confne them
selves.
The Court thought in the present stage, that
the District Attorney should condnc himself to tho
specific perjury chargedat future one, they might
60 into the question of malice.
Mr. Hall said he would offer the evidence in the
course of the trial, and with that ntimaton from
the Court, would avoid the subject at present.
After few further observations, Mr.. Horny Van
dervoort. the clerk of the Court of Sessions, was
sv orn but it admitted that on the day
named, the Court of Special Sessions was consti-
tuod as alleged, that Brush was tried for an as.
sault and battery, and that tho defendant was
sworn a witness Mr.. Hall then rendered the
complaint which that trial was had and Mr..
Jordan objected on the same grounds before Mr..
Haltwould only now ask Mr. Vandervoort whether
the paper produced not record Of the Court
lie did not mcan TO put its contents in evidence.
Question was put, and answered IN the affirmative
Paper marked /" A" by the Court
Abraham u. Russell, counsollor.a al law. exam
/ incd-knew the complainant aud defendants was
/ present in tie Special Sessions tho day named Ia
! The indictment, and was Mr.. Brushs counsel; was
prcs,nt during the whole trial: Mr. Ferguson swore
that be went into Bruh's house on the doy in Quos