New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-02-06
s1rRrrx.sT pIscHAReEp.

Some months ago. during period of much excite
nent in relation tie expected passage Of the Broad
way Railroad through the Board of Aldermen, certain
partes who deemed that the act would be pecuniariy
injurious TO them and also to the City at large procured
from the Superior Court an injunction forbiddng tue
MAYOR. Aldermen and CommOnalty from eBactlng
such charter This Injunction was received
by some Of the Aldermen and Assistants with respect,
By some with Indifference aud by others with anger AMI
defiance The leader of the latter Oscar ". Stur-
teysut. himself LAWYER Mr. S. was not satisfied
with disobeyrg tic Injunction he must at the same
tine indulge himself in the pleasure of abusing the
uoge no issued it, in terms peculiar to t.e classical
body Of which lie was distinguished member. For
dsobeGence of the injunction, the Aldermen AMI As
sistants were adjudged guilty OF cOntemptof Court
and fined $3.50 each, While Mr. Sturteyant was not
only fined but sentenced to Gfseen days imprison
mtnt. This judgment the defendants appealed
from, but il finally affirmed By the Court
OF Appeals, after which the Superior Court gave or
Gcrs to execute the judgment and the Sheriff set to
work collecting the fines and putting Mr. Sturtevant
through his fifteen days in the Debtors Prison. On
tie Goth ut lie formally committed but the door
had scarcely closed upon him when writ of habeas
CORPUS brought him out Argument was heard before
Justice of the Supreme Court aid the burned
70 the Goth meanwhile leaving the prisoner in the
tody of the Sherif-in other words, entirely at large,
with the understanding that he should be on hand when
called for More arguments were had and on the 3ls
the Judge decided that the writ which Mr. StIrte
want had enjoyed ten days liberty was void, aud re-
manded him 10 the custody of the Sheriff by whom he
was taken to the prison. Whether he remained there
the following three days we do not know it is said,
however that he did But on Saturday another writ
of ksbeas corpus was applied for, and was in
course Of preparation, when the District Attorney
informed the Court that the writ required that
Nj sturteyants time was up, his Imprisonment having
continued in point of law, from the day Of the COM
ritrnent on Jan 90. This view was acquiesced in by
the committing power, and the prisoner was discharged
Through bis knowledge of legal bubbles he has STAYED
of the execution of the sentence for months and tast
whitfield his fifteen day down to tree four 1t has
beer generally understood that Contempt Of Court was
coenizabe only by the Court offended and to be pun
ished at the time and on the spot. II witness re-
fuses answer lie is forthwith hailed to prison, and
lies there appeals and wrs to the contrary notwith-
standing He is punished for contempt But with
this oily Alderman the case is different Instead Of
being at once locked Up, as plain Jones or Smith
would have been he is permitted 10 run from term to
term and from Court TO Court and though at last
committed be manages, by diut Of the same derces,
to reduce his imprisonment to quarter OF its nominal
/ term II ia something however that Sturtevant has
actually been under lock aud key. Apart from the
partial Justice to the individual it proves that 10 man
can with irprnity insult the Courts and tia. what
ever delays and reaxatOns Of punishment he may OBJ
tain By INSCRIPTIONS ehcanery they are the fault of
the law and not of its executors We presume the
low discharged culprit VIII wait az least till he ia
chosen Alderman again before he repeats the ofense.