New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-01-31
CASE or AID. STURTEVANT.

SUPREME COURT-Bsfore Judge CLgRKg
IN THE MATTER or OSCAR W. sTURTEyAHT ON HABEAs
CORPUS
Yesterday, Mr. Blunt the District Attorney desired to
read the following returns from the Sheriff
a. John Orser. Sheriff of the City and County Of Now
York. do tho annexed writ of habeas corpus
that the said Oscar w SturtevGn in the said writ named
taken into my custody such Sheriff the Goth day
of January inst under and by virtue of certain commit
Issued of and under the seal of the Superior
Court Of the City Of Now York. true copy whereof Ia
hereto annexed That under said commitment the said
close custody in the Jail in the City and County
Of New York, ss commanded by said warrant and com
tHer fer about the space Of two hours when the sad
writ of habeas corpus delivered to and there
upon under and in pursuance of the said writ OF habeas
corpus, caused the body of Oscar W. sturevani to DO
mre diatelHaken before the Hon Thomas W Cerke. as
commanded in sad writ of habeas corpus, and before
any return made to said writ of habeas corpus fur
hor proceedings upon the said habeas corpus were al
iourned b. the said Judge until this day at IL o'clock
A. NJ and The said Oscar W. Sturtevant was ihereupon
take from my custody by virtue and in pursuance OF
certain order Of the said Judge And that the said Oscar
w Stutovan since the making of the said order, has not
been and is not in custody or under my power or
restraint
EP Cowles Esq read the following reply of Mr. Stur
ievant:
1.-THE said Oscar W. surtevant in reply to the return in
this matter and without admitting that he has dsobeyed
any legal Injunction order of the Superior Court OF the
City Of New York. that he has committed any contempt
of that Court that the said warrant of commitment is
sufficient legal on its face and reterating the aega
tons Of his petition alleges that he is informed and be-
authorized by any legal judgment or order of the said Su
perior Court.
While the proceedings were going on, Mr. s:urtevant
came into Court in charge of Deputy Sheriff Vuee
Judge Bronson behalf of the people, spoke at some
length arguing that where there final decision the
matter could not be reviewed by any Court This decision
had beer made by the Superior Court and sustained BY
the Court of last resort The reply of the prisoner was
singular ard he hardly knew what to make OF it. The de-
PENDANT SANS that he was informed and believes that the
warrant for his and imprisonment not author
lied by any legal Judgment or order Of the Superior
Court The council believed that the Judges Of the Su
peror Court knew what they about &C. In the case
of pardon the could be reviewed the same in the
case of an apprentice This precise provided for
and he held that could moi be reviewed by officer out
of Court
Mr. Field aontended that the whole proceeding was void
rs stay Of proceeding in the had been allowed by
Judge Boswortb of the Superior Court and the attorney
who issued the warrant liable for an action for false i'm
prisenment
Mr. Blunt in opposition said if there had been stay Of
proce edpQ the proper course would be application to
the Superior Court and the matter cannot be reviewed by
habeas corpus
Argument presented at very considerable length
Mr. Cole of Hudson (who Of the counsel for Aid
erman Surtevan contendng that the regularity Of the
warran, on hsbeas corpus could be inquired into.
The principal point on the part Of defendant is that in
taking the case into Court of Appeals ceased to be in the
Superior Court and the remttimus Tor confirmation OF
udgmen should have been returned to that Court and
judgment entered upon the remitmuA which was not
done but the remitimus forwarded to the attorney who
proceeded issuing and procuring the Clerk OF the Supe
nor Court sign the On the other hand it is
contsuded that tie proceedings have been regular and
rect and that the Judge habess corpus has right to
look behind the warrant Decision this forenoon