The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-12-05

cord ., that and 70 ascertain ws..h.r II susho..s
Attorney.
Tho in tbs tbsn read bv Mr. Blunt
Of the Court OF Appess HE point vas this -T6e
Court OF Appeals undertook nod cognzanes Of this
without having jurisdiction OF the person Of he
prisoner by nsvipg him before them in the manner rs-
CURED by Law Counsel cited in support Of tha
view be presented and referred che provisions Of the
second Revived Statues, third edition page $40 which
provide thst Indicted for any felonv ar
can be tried unets he be ,ssossy present daring eh
is trial u for the examination Of the issue between
parties whether II he issue Of Law issue Of
The statute ta1s that on all trials the criminal shall
be personally FrasDt and the code Gays that trial
examination OF issue OF law sa issue Of fact
The District Attorney usht ccn.end that shs being
code OF civil practice is not Applicable to criminal pro-
dngs; but To how that picsbe this class Of
criminal procedure rouns. would cal attention 10 TIN
Revised satutss giving tbs tight Of bills OF exception anil
wriv OF error in crimnsi The third edition Of
the Revised Statutes ST. lection 81 provides that,
sbe trial oaDy indictment exception to any decision
Of the Court may BIZ made by the efendaet in She
and in the fsme manner provided by Law in civil
nctionr The Revised Sts,utss expressly state that ii
shalt only be in the but 1t shall to
Quoted In the same manner PERSONAL scons Counsel
vent 20 that the C3ut, Of Appeals had assumed
isictsn vhsn they had not the person OF the defend
present according the requirements OF law and
that, Therefore their judemsnt u void and this Court
had no foundation which they could nov pro-
coed 10 sentence this prisoner Counsel also contend
ed that the statute CT February 1852 under which the
Court Of Appeals had acted in shs not past
acio Law There is sounder principle in law. rs in
ethics morals han hat general Law shat. no, retroaet,
shall not look back Therefore Jourt Of Appsas from
the statement on their own record shows IS regards that
fact that they had ur Of the subject matter
which they considered Therefore this which they call
record Is record The court had power urisdc
ton and It wac no warrant fos this court; and they
acted on it they should do wrong The sct for the oom
committed in June July, 1851, aud that act was
committed subject TO the pains aud penalties which them
existed and subsequent statute which the Legislature
might pass could make The prisoner amensbio for any
greater penalty any greater responsibility than he was
stooa in snc w that MO nrsoner :ouJ he
prisoner has light to put himself twice in
jeopardy If he gets the Judgment reversed it 10 not
the people ,hat .revsisos it but himself; and he
may 60 back and bs tried, bnt he is no. tried by
the people It Is privilege which he has asked and
neither the Ib.t the letter OF the constitution il
lated because the second jeopardy Is produced by him
self But let in this whether there " not
here jeopardy by the operation Of the people He
first tried and in jeopardy by the people. Ne vent TO
granted him new trial If he went back then and was
put trial. the act his and not the peoples
But II the people carry him up superior court and re-
the verdict which had been rendered against him. Is
not that the act OF the people putting him in jeopardy
twice for the same cause OF action He was eopazdzed
first by the and jury and he placed in Jeopardy
second time by the Of the people, in taking into
the court which reversed the decision made In his favor
had NO jurisdiction in this case and that yeur honors
have no Judgment before you renai,iedu. nothing
but blank piece Of wsich void for the three
fitutiona defects which have alluded Counsel then
bore testimony to the uniform truth and upgntnsss he
had expee need from the prisoner and stated that his
remarks made at the time Of sentence were entirely
misunderstood. He meant to have sad that he had
intention whatever Of taking tAat mans kse tina. he
struck him with stick which accidentally came to
him as he would have struck him with rattan, or
thing which happened to get into his possession He
had struck him not with malice towards him, but
merely because his companion being beaten in o
manner that he thought humsn nature should stand
by and sse that be also in his ct the time but
desire to kill that man ana there Is person the
world regrets more, independently of the position he
stands in that he deprived that man Of his life.
Mr. Blunt District Attorney responded seyotn to tho
arguments used by Mr. Morris contendpg that no infe-
ror court could question the jurisdiction Of the Court Of
pear to him to place matters in this positions that Ii the
Court Of Appesls having entertained jurisdiction, hav-
ing on that jurisdiction determined proceeding and
remtted to inferior that every In this
State divided into eight judicial districts and having
from which appeal lies direct to the Court cd 5peals
that each and every one Of the ten separate
eouas 81 si up sn .gsD. the
State Is the exclusive judge Of its jurisdiction If
there were in this decision Of the Court Of Appeals any
violation Of the law of the land principle deter.
mined at variance with that principle of the constitution
OF the United States which declares that poss laws
longs NOT to this hopoi able the Supreme
Court Of the United States at Washington. Mr. Blunt
case one in which, the one side, human life was
involved and ths other the great Of public Justice
he had not stood upon ceremony and tecbnicasy but
had frankly as public officer and without the sghtest
intention doing harm TO man but with the fullest
determination ofuphoding the law, accorded all that
could be asked to the prisoner and said he dis
charge the last painful duty Of asking your honors as
ministerial officers to perform that act which ths law of
the land imp cses on you
Mr. Morris offered few words in reply, eoAtending
that this court had not the legal power amend the re-
cord lie frankly acknowledged that the District Attor
ney though he did not travel out of his duty rendered
every facility TO this poor fellow he prsoner 1t
to the District Attorney he indebted being able to
reach the Supreme Court.
The matter adjourned for fortnight when de-
no In he hf mill tloN
order entered and the prisoners nited
to the custody OF the Sheriff As similar points arise
with respect to Sullivan there argune mt In his
case The decision will pertain to the merits Of both