The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-07

onte etasr haaa \ IVES Aeid n Hs~stca " Nee n ~
Tat N evsy oase in which Tire stste tribun6ls
shsud nst % eEay eHcluded ~ To sets Of IL -
Of the causes to which these scs mirbt s,s s;sh -
that The grant sfjursdotion gessray was not a tsf
sueint to rest ~ exclusive jurisdiction ChauoeIIor
tioa In thess words: "Ths concIusioa then III tbst i.
judicial matters the concurrent jurisdiction Of thu State
txbOals Depends altogether upon the pleasure Of Con-
they think proper in every case in which the subject
matter can eonstitutionsiy be aade cognssbs in the
iedess sn6 et without 2. e.press provision TO
Jurisdiction In all where they had jurisiction or
gtnay over the subject mstter." Our court for tine
Hill 1914 took the same view Of the question Broasou
j. in deyeging the opniOn q the Court ssys "There M
think ~, no instance 10 y the xhOs history Of tn. law
court without any words of eHcluson has been held
Dust any other court Of the powers which II before pos
and denies that person. Who withi our terrific
~ commits crime which is oognixabie In the United
States courts Is thereby exempt from being prosecuted
Is prepared to carry the doctrine q exclusive jurisdiction
80 far" From this examination II is by no means GER
though the federal have and exersed
It, There IL stW another view Of the in which IL may
be that the State tribunals may have dic$ca Gases
the State Jurisdiction than under that Of the federal a
thoxiffes In the latter any misconduct negligence
inattenton which results in sacrifice Of life. may be
enough for conviction but under tho former must
necessarily be proved, namely act that evnces
deprsyed mind regardless Of human ifssome act i'm
HARM but that must almost necessarily do 40 Aud
may well be that that Is offence in respect to which
Congress has not that In any view the State
authos1ty may be untrNsnmehed met clear thatt
may not 10 no, N to leave doubt on my mind.
From the views have thus stated 1t will be perceived
that am by clear that the State courts have
jurisdiction. II was satisfied Of that the prison
would be entitled to their discharge But as to say
the least It IL matter Of doubt il is my duty to hold
fna xAA
form This result renders IL necessary for to examine
the ether question any crime against our
to in what the prisoners shall tried
That involves the question whether unlawful killing
by an act immineny dangerous and evncing deprsved
mind regardless Of human life of itself constitutes the
crime of murder under our statute, and whether it
Is not also necessary to prove intention to hurt
The revisers in their notes to this statute
FAY 1t not intended there should be any departure
from the then existing law except to implied malice
and for this particular enactment they refer to Hales
Pleas OF the Crown. There 1t 10 stated that the intent
to do body harm necessary in such case to const
tute murder and that writer in illustration the
case of man who knowing that people passing along
the street, throws stone shoots the
house or wall with intent to do hurt to people, Is
thereby sain-ths is murder; and If 1t were without
such intentent, it is manslaughter not at liberty
to depart from the rule and it govern
me in the construction of statute, until the Court
shall put different interpretation upon it. And this view
OF the statute confirmed the fact the revisers
commended provision that would have made unlawful
killing murder, when perpctrated from premedtated
uesjbu 10 some great DOuUy without
premeditated design to effect death; but the Legsla.
ture refused to enact ithus implying in my view that
design to do great bodily HARM intention to kill
must attend an act mmnenty dangerous &c, to make
the crime murder. l ut one time thought that there
could be conviction for murder under this clause of
statute unless there intention to take the
eo some one. though was not necessary to prove
intent to take the life of any particular individual.
Therefore, IL was that in the of Austin q N Leg
Obs. ll7.) remarked, whether the act murder
granddaughter under statutes depended entirely upon
the existence Of an intention to kill either particu
lar person, or generally of number OF persons
against whom in mass the fatal act is perpetrated
There is ony one homicide known to our law which be-
comes murder in the absence of intention effect
DEATH and that is when the act is perperaed by one
then engaged in committing a felony l am not yet
satisfied that in this was wrong though ii is not
cessay to decide that point here 1t is enough for this
occasion that deem there should be evidence at least ofan
intention to dosome bodily harm; ana that must be-
statute must be held to punish homicide perpe-
trated without any intention to do wrong severely
than ono perpetrated BY one actually engaged in the
commission Of crime misdemeauor not amounting to
felony Under our statute the latter Ia mansiaughter
only and cannot be that 1t means TO treat the other
murder. Now in this there Is ALE CATION of an
intention do bodily hahn, but, the contrary the
alleged negative that idea and thus us one essen
ta element to constitute the crime Of murder Is wanting
the prioners ought not to be held that charge They
ought not however to BIZ fully discharged but may pro-
peiy be held for manslaughter. and, am inclined to
think in the fret degree. That Is defined in statute
To be The killing OF human being. without de-
ssn to affect drath by the act procurement or
cupab,s negligence Gi any other, while such o.hce il
ensuped In the preparation of any crime misde
meautr not amounting to felony (2 r. SOL, sec. o
And II is also enacted that il the person having charge
of steamboat navigating waters, the person
having charge OF the boiler. fur The purpose of exccug
my other boat in speed foe the purpose OF ncreau
the speed Of such boat create allow BIZ created
undue or rnsac quantity OF steam they tbnll be guilty
OF misdcmf Laws OF 1889 oh. lis Sec b. iIeret
alleged in the warrant, in the language of the
statute that thu killing occurred while tho prisoners
engaged in performing those very 80 that,
although the warrant calls the Offence murder. that
which details is in fact not murder but maslaugh
ter Whether it is manslaughter in the frat
ton which DO not feel myself called upon to
idrr 1t is enough for this case that satisfied that
the prisoners not under the statute properly charge
able With the crime Of murder, which is not balabe but
with offence for which they may be let to bail The
conclusion then at which have arrived is that the alb
ofjmisdction in the State courts il clear
to warrant the total discharge of the prisoners
cannot, however be held the charge OF murder but
may be held the charge of mluslaughter aud that
as that offence baabe they may be admitted TO bail
conversation then en-ued to the amount OF bail.
when Mr. Cutting said that tie District Attorney of
Westchester county, and himself would agree upon that
After brief consultation Mr. Cutting informed the
Judge that the parties would give the bail for their
appearance in Weschestr county had been put upon
them in the United States Courtthat Is $40 600 Mr.
Collyr and $40 900 for all the rest These recosni.
zaDces were then entered into. Mr. William Radtord
of the propctors Of the Henry Clay Mr. Colyer
Of the accused also part owner and another gentleman
we're the BAH.
Common Picas-Special Term
by Hon. Judge Daily
nE..x,