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

ssDoe but That the court meant to npsss Ass only,
tue II o.
In the People vs. con ia Wsnd, As) Savage, Oh. ]
aAeo says that the rule H. that when any corporcA
puntbneDt Is 70 be inflicted tho defendant he must
be personally present In court whom s-ntence 10 pro
noupsed." And In the People wipehil case s2s.
should he brought into court although he vas eat On
Ssl None OF these eases have shown what the rule 70
In the appellate court and they oil are consistent With
emily for a writ Of error and not for holding ths
Judgment void chltty says (Cr, law 1917 that while
the writ Of error Is pending, "in Of fslones,
tie ssf.pdsnt must ss In court upon all motions y
He, however quotes authority FOR this and We fad
nome The srsccs IN our courts IN this respect seems
brought INTO court and 20 In many other cases. In
Others the argument has bsen without the Of
he would not object and the judgment Of the
court below ssaiBst him and that affirmed
Which IL. courts have Unsut the presence Of
the poper sufficiently TO lead to the Con-
cusiou that the presence Of the prisoner IN the higher
not essent 81 70 it's jurisdiction II his alb
sepee woula make the formu,ary erroneous And when
the highest the state gives Judgment which
carefully srcers the sentence Of death to
II barely be supposed that 10 done without that
s:u,t co.sslBs that = Saa Of the ps.oa
the party !. due form q Ia. giving him such Notice Of
n. bringing hi. into curt HAT was done n ibis osss
bv serving COPY Of ths writ OF error on the prisoner
tute has sometimes prevented their Obtaining jurisdiction
unless the party actually before the court Ssoh
Biselow stearps 10 J. r., 80 In other 1t
has been held that II process served defen
dAnt and he did in BY attorney the
judgment ~ Amt him ives void. Such was Borden vs
Ftsh ID J r, al, and many others. And 1t may bs
that the express statutory provision q s. 1856 and
N that 70 persen Indicted for any felony osn be tried
rs,;s b. ss mt snsh
prsent But the trial there intended Ii that which
10 properly called the trial nsmelythat before the jury
H~swn tkaraa 90
show.
1t IL also true thst ct common Law the defendant
could appear by counsel ard that the privilege to
appear by counsel granted not intended to dis
peDse with the prisoncr personal apps But that
sssis docs not apply to the appellate court there Is
believed counsel could always argue for the accused
Undoubtedly the presence Of the accused may be Of
great service to sugget counsel of
for ef exces of perception
In the client which the learning Of the counsel have
failed 10 exhibit That 10 fair argument why the
an argument to show that without his presence the
aFpelse court is without jurisdiction
The fta ute authorizing the writ Of behalf Of
the people passed March 70 1852 motion AIDE
In the Court of Appes dmiss the writ the GROUND
that by the record made for that court the judg
tebrnaIy preceoiDg but Il appeared that, al
though the argument Was in the February pre-
cediDg yet in fact the judgment was rendered
In Nay 1852 and that court denied the netioa That
dechion BINDS us 10 rsgsrd the writ as applicable to
this IL aso argued that the act Of March "a
1861 gave the Court Of Appeals power only to review the
Judgment Of tho Supreme Court and not to
moory it; and 1t argued that the appellate court,
therefore only hss power to review the iudgmsut and
state what the Law and that the ta the Law
thus announced should be declared and acted But
that cour has given different construction
to this act by specially directing that the udg asnt OF
this court be reversed and that of the Oyer and rerm
ner In al things afrDed that the record be remit
ted to this I'm order that th may direct
the sentence Of death TO bs executed" Nothing re-
uaBs for In this place bus to execute the law
declared by he sent OF last resort As when We revsrsd
the judgment OF the Oyer and Termiaer would mot
interfere with The province Of the jury discussing the
question whether in fact the prisoners guilty not
now We win not depart from proper sphere by
pressing in this place any opinion the correctness Of
the decision OF the higher court 1t our duty to obey
it, and We 90
ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR
DIc IL The following gentlemen were admitted to
prsctirs attorneys and counsellors at lawArnola
Harris Wagner Esq Clerk of the Supreme Court Henry
H. Rice Efq Clerk Of the Superior Court; Samuel
Brown Efq Clerk Of the New York Common Pleas; and
Jeff.ron Coddpgton Esq.