New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-11-30


SUPREME C0vRT-GrSERM TEHy-Bstore JUICES
EDWARDS MITCHELL and ROOSEVELT
JAS. Sullivan. convicted some time since IN
the Oyer and Teriaer. for the murder Of y0unS man
oy stAooag. during difficulty in ClA 81 hnd jos f.
CaiE convicted Of the murder Of NJ. Gillespie pouco
oicer 10 Roosoveit-t by striking him with carr raas
were brought up pursusnt postponemeHt for resen
tencc 70 execution
The wife and children Of sullivan were present,
The District Attorney read the order con the haoei'
corpus on which they brought up for re sentence
OF Oct - REMINDING them 20 be brought up Nov. -
Qoday) lie moved for order further REMINDING
them to Saturday neN then to be bFvugh; up for r.
sentence
After the conviction ofthese r,,. will y, r7,collec'e1
their counsel iMr. R5ht H. norTi) brought WrIts OF
appeals on Their behalf TO the Supreme Court and me
csse WIS argued On the trial i, was held by JUICE
Edno nds that I. the Jury considered there WIS Dc
sign to eject death the very instant the blow was
given and 20 ascertain this fhs Jury consider the
weHpon used snd the part where the blow struck
II L murder although there bad bern no prsinedtate1
design The Supreme Cont held that there must have
been premedfsted design-ihaf Is design previous 70
the instant OF the blow being struck in orier 90 const
tute Murcer-srd ordered new trials. 81 the time OF
the conviction. we believe there law granting an
appeal in eminent On behalf Of the Government
beyondthe Supreme Court hut law passed by the
Legislature last winter authorizing fur her appeal on
behalf OF the prosecution, and the decision Of the Su
pTeine Court IN resiion 70 these two further
appealed by the District Attorney tine Court OF Ap
peaLs. which reversed the decision OF the Supreme
Court holding the rule sd down by the Judge az the
Oyer and Teriner who. then by the general arrange
ment Of the law forming the Court had become men
Der OF the Court Of Appeals and sending the cse back
10 the Supreme Court sentence the msn,he time Of
sentencing fixed by the Oyer and Terminer having
passed anew.
After the motion of the District Attorney for them TO
he remanded to Saturday and then be brought up for
re sentence,
Judge Roosevelt said /, appears to be proper TIA,
counsel Of prisoners, both OF the cases, should be
heard some of the questions which arse and that u
should be done before these warrants are signed have
drawn up in writing the suggestions which have &C.
CURED 10 my mind in rejecting upon this case and an
free to say they without difficulty TIE statute
provides that before this Court direct the execution OF
person they shall inquire into the facts and crcuu
stances connected with II. and 10 legal reasons exist
70 the contrary the Court 20 sign the warrant Tor eN
ccution IL would seem, although Il IL nOt perfectly
plain that this law the Revised Sta.utes remains I'M
repealed The present law requires each and every
member of the Court 10 sen warrant 10 con,igh
human being 10 the scaod in obedience not 70 our own
judgment Tut 10 the judgment OF the appellate tribunal
IL i grave case end 6rn free to say has been I'd me
of deep and most anxious rchecuon' pat tuc
law been that The Court generally should act nght nave
kept HE objections which 10 my owI bosom bus
hei the members of the Court are individually relurc
10 sign this warrant Before doing so we have taken
admit time for consdoratiOn-havc taken ulready sew
orsl weeks-and the j. passed now by the DISTRICT
Attorney. still think II II proper we snoull tase iur
hcr time, for appears 10 me- considering the cnAs
ter Of this case and its conequcnces' mar DC pDSsf
and with due preparation. on any question: II there De
any which may arise in the do not mean tnat
the counsel 60 the original ground again, put
IN TIE case g. IL presents self this Court, under
an net II VIII he borne in mind not part of the per-
manent legislation OF the State but an act passed
az tLe last ssop, Retrospective. it seems 20 me-
IN ~ charh ter and which alone has brought TO this
Cou me dny beyond the act in the matter before
us r. proper. II IL under this act Of ll,t session
special act-and one which appears 70 me- may he
wrong-not to harmonic wirh the general character
and general spirit of urpuicnce that we arc in
criminal case not in favor OF the weak against the
strong, but In favor OF the strong against the weak-and
which allowed no further appeal on the then
existing law by the people against the pTsoner-and
appeal which by the law, then stood the prOsecu
ton could not have taken, hut which appeal was taken
under the new law, and tho effect o. which has
been that the decision of this Court has been reversed
and We are called upon 10 sign warrant in direct
opposition 10 the Judgment which we have before pro
nounced Judge Edwards here said something in a
low tone 20 Judge r. The latter continued Ii IS
proper that | should observe that the views which
have thrown out are suggestions considerations OF
my own and am alone responsible for them. hal
reduced them to writing but j. unnecessary 70 detan
tie Court and audience, "a nave given brie outline
of them
Mr. Elunt District Attorney rose and said twill be
proper for me this stage OF the proceeding to say,
ready as am at oil times counsel especially in
case involving the life OF another, md give It favOrs
bic consideration viii be proper TO correct y0ps o"
in regard to the law OF last winter AM sayt was
not special act but one general in il character.
Judge Edwards remarked 10 Mr.. Blunt ny assoclite
and ysc think II IL not proper to have discussion q,
this time. The order that have presented ProP
ard i'll be entered.
Mr.. b. replied II was only to correct ms hohor'
Judge r., as il was general law.
The prisoners were remsnded. and the Court sd-
journcd TO Saturday next.