Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1849-1856, 1854-12-14

sisted in stating that the person was not
authorized by the City Council to sell when
it should have stated that he was not au-
thorized by the Mayor and Aldermen to
sell AS an agent for the city. 1t may with
a great deal of truth be said, that the mesh
es of the law are so arranged as to catch
great ones get only slightly squeezed
Prov. Tribune.
The Tribune is mistaken in supposing
that the error named above is the only one
which existed in the Complaints and War
rants in the Liquor cases from this city, in
the Common Pleas in this County, last
week. There were two other material and
fatal errors in portion of the cases. There
were several cases from Tiverton, at the
same Term, where one of the same errors
had been II ade the Defendants in these
cases were represented by Mr.. Updike, oi
Providence, Nr. Boomer of Fall River, and
Mr.. Sheffield of this city but neither Of
these gentlemen had discovered the error.
The Attorney General, however, whose
eagle-eye discovers the most minute legal
inaccuracy, espied the fatal mistake, and
we'll knew that he could not sustain his
complaints if the counsel for the Defence
had made the same discovery he was
anxious to save the State from the costs of
the suits,-and proposed to the above nam
cd gentlemen to discontinue proceedings
against their clients if they would pay
costs,--a very wise proposition of his. The
above named counsel regarded this as
very liberal offer, and their clients, taking
their advice, most gladly accepted OF the
profered terms, and launched out the money,
amounting to some hundreds Of dollars,
which, Of course, was clear gain to the
State. In regard to the cases from this
city, we were counsel for all the accused
except two we prepared ourselves on the
points in question, and when the cases
were called presented our views to the
Court, all of which were sustained and all
the Defendants were released from further
prosecution Oh thes, cciE ,..-.nts.
The objections raised in these cases were
not "meshes of The law so arranged" as
tn. Tribune asserts, for our especial conve-
nience we and no other opponent Of the
law had any hand or participation in its
manufacture or perfection. Every opponent
Of this prohibitOry law in the General As
sembly voted against it because he believed
It to be unconstitutional, and consequently
entirely illegal. Therefore, when the Tri-
bune declares that "the meshes Of the law
are SO arranged as to catch and grind the
small rogues, while the great ones get only
slightly squeezed,"-it must remember that
if its position is correct one, it is entirely
and exclusively indebted to its particular
friends in this G. eat eUort Of moral reform,
for all these inaccuracies, as none but the
friends OF the law had any hand in its crea-
ton. If they have made blunders, certainly
the opponents Of so unjust law cannot be
blamed or held responsible for taking advan.
tage Of any of them. We state now as we
stated in our argument in Court, that it is
the duty OF all judicial tribunals to hold the
complainants under this law TO as strict
compliance with all its provisions in matter
of form Us they do the accused this is all
that we ask, and it is all entirely tenable
ground in law. So long as the Courts DO
this, we can defeat the complainants in nine
cases out OF ten, under this miserable abor-
ton Of, and pretext for, a law.
A large proportion Of the Maine law fam
atics are one idea men,and if they can bring
up some miserable drunkard, whose facul-
ties are almost destroyed by dissipation, to
swear that he has bought glass of liquor
OF some particular man,-and he often does
this TO be released from Jail they think
that the accused should be forthwith punish
ed, regardless Of the formalities of law, or
the proper and well.scttled principles Of
criminal practice. Fortunately for society,
we have as yet an honest Judiciary, who
try cases under the Maine Law in the same
manner, and by the same rules Of evidence,
as they try every other class of criminal
cases. AS every lawyer knows, there can
be but one class OF rules in criminal cases,
and Courts can make no exceptions in the
trial of causes under the criminal Code
II is true that some Of the provisions OF this
law are monstrous in the extreme; Justices
of the Peace even are clothed with far
greaterlpower than is given to The Supreme
Court Of the State. II an error is made in
an Indictment against any man, for anyiof-
fence, no matter how aggravated, in the Su-
prcme Court, and the mistake is not dis
covered until after the case has been OPEN
ed to the jury on the part Of the Govern
mcnt, there is no remedy for il, and the
prisoner must be discharged, and cannot
again be molested but under this law,even
a Justice VI the Peace has the right TO
amend any error. either in substance or
form, which may have been made in the
procceding.i This is an iniqui,y and
monstrosi,y which is worthy only Of tho
men and the days Of the Star Chamber, in
one Of The most brutal ages WHICH has ever
darkcpcd tho parcs and discr,ced The name