The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-12-20
N- -

ssnco but that the court meant 70 impose hns only
tess ,S rule .oo =. sss o. y saSa
In the People vs. son (12 Wsnd, S4S) Savage Oh. j.
afo ssys that the rule L. that when any corporca
be personally present in court when s-ntenee 10 pro
noupsed.n And In the Pesple winshill case k2S
GSu to 1p = n. q.
hail None Of these have shosn what the rule is
In the appellate court and they all consistent With
the idea that the defendant woult be governed
emily for a writ Of error, ana not for holding the
Judgment void Chilly says. (Cr law, 1871 that while
the ssf.pSsnt must " in court upon all motions .
Re however quotes authority for this and We fad
The prsctice IN our courts In this respect seems
to have been uniform In the OF Rector he
brought INTO court, and 20 In many other cases. In
Others the argument has bsen without the presence Of
he would not object and the judgment Of the
below seass him and that were affirmed On
his writ o. error he could not object The eases !.
the priorer sufficiently numerous 70 lead to the Con-
olusioa that the presence Of the prisoner in the higher
mot 81 70 its jurisdiction even II his alb
sepce woula make the f1rmulsry erroneous And when
the highest Of the state gves Judgment which
makes vsid an srdsr for new trial. ana specially and
carefully orders tho sentences Of death TO b
barely be supposed that II was done without thst
court coasderiDg had jurisdiction Of the person
Of the prisoners To obtain Jurisdiction over the person.
the party i. due form 81 Ia. giving him such nstiss II
-. bringing n. into curt TSst was done n ibis os.s
bv serving copy Of the writ OF on the prisoner.
In ether GASES sspssisy IN inferior eour special Sta
unless the party actually before tho court 6aoh
was Biselow stearps 10 r., 80 In other casss II
has been held that NO presses was served ON defeA
dast and he did app in court BY attorney the
Judgment ~ Amt him IVES void Such was Borden
Eiah ~ R. H. and many other r, AID it %sy ::
that 10 person isdst.d fer any felony can b. tried
us:s. be BE- personally present during such trial.
would make void trial when the person indicted was
present But the trial there intended IL that which
properly caed the trial nsmslythst before the jury,
- the rest of the title containing that section tends to
It il also true that ct common Law the defendant
could net appear by counsel ard that the privilege to
appear by COUNSEL granted not intended to dis
peDse with the prisoners personal apps But that
sgss docs not apply to the sppelAte court there 1t Is
believed counsel could always argue for the accused
Undoubtedly the presence Of the accused may be Of
service to suggest TO counsel arguments Of law
for self interest oeB excites of perception
In the een which thu learning 81 the counsel may have
failed 10 exhibit That 10 . fair argument why the
prisoner should DO press in those but not
argument to show that, without his presence, the
appellate court lis without jurisdiction
The statute authorizing the writ Of error behalf Of
the people passed March 70 1852 Amoion AIDE
10 the Court Of Appess dismiss the writ the ground
that by the record made for that court tina udg
nsnt Of this purportrd to have been given in the
though the argument was in the February pre-
cediDg, yet. in fact the judgment was rendered
In May, 1852 and that court denied the melton That
dechion binds US 10 rsssro the writ as applicable to
this II vas ALEC argued that the act Of March "a
1861 gave the Court Of Appeals power only t. review the
modify 1t; and 1t argued that tho appellate court
therefore only hss power to review the judgmsnt and
state what the Law and that the trial the law
thus announced should be- declared and acted on. But
that has prs ticsy given differesr construction
to this act by specially affecting that the udg usnt Of
this court be reversed and that Of the Oyer and rsrm
ner In all things srned that the record be remit
ted to this court in order that ths court may direct
the sen 'esce Of dsath 70 bs executed" Nothing
naBs for In this place but to execute the law 1t
cared by the seurt Of last resort As whn reversed
the judgment Of the Oyer and Termiser would not
interfere with The provinces Of the jury discussing the
question whether in fact the prisoners guilty not
now win not depart from proper sphere by
pressing in this place opinion the correctness Of
the decision OF the higher court 1t Ia duty to obey
it, and We 90 so
ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR
DIo II The following gentlemen were admitted to
Harris wagner Esq Clerk Of the supreme Court. Henry
H, Rice Esq Clerk Of the Superior Court Samuel
Brown, Esq Clerk Of the New York Common Pleas; and
Jeff.ron Coddipgton, Esq.