New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-05-19
law INI'ELLIGENCE
COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER-BefOre Judge Roos"v'Lr
CASE or WILLIAM HAYES.

COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER-Before Judge Roos"vtLr
CASE or WILLIAM HAYES
The stated that in the Of tho Poo
PIE against William Hayes the Indictment contains mum
Der of counts. of them charging him with beng
principal in the alleged murder OF DR. Lutener aud others
charging him with being accessory before the fac-te
said murder alleged 10 have been committed By Clara
Hayes After protructod trial. and thorough nyessa-
ton before highly intelligent and conscientous Jury
they have thought proper to render verdict abso'yns
Mr. HAYES from the charge of murder. have no adj
onal evidence in this against William Hayes Inc
evidence in my possession produced on the examination
before the Coroner- Jury clearly and eoncusvey esab-
fishes the that William Hayes left Harlem in the 10
o clock train that morning This has been proved by
persons who to the City with him. aud whose testi-
monv undoubtedly correct, It being Immediately AFTER
the occurrence The testimony the trial Of lara Hl"es
seemed 10 establish the of the death of Dr. Lu.cner
having been produced az some period intermediate OF
quarter before 10 aud quarter past TO- and according To me
testimony therefore William Hayes could no., win his
hand. have caused the death Under these cIreun-
shall ask at the hands OF the Court leave To- en-
a nolle prosequi on this indictment against Nniam
Hayes.
The Counsel for defense suggested that another section
of tie law should be the coure pnrsued-hat % Tor the
Court to discharge the prisoner from the oheTe other
ise he MIGHT be inflicted again 20 years from
when his witnesses would be all dead The District Aitor-
ney remarked that 10 power could compel District ator-
ney To try ease he considers 1t would bo proper 10
do So A. this matter stands he thought 1t would be I'M
necessarily taking up the time of the Court but wthn
the OF the District Attorney, shouu uuupi" ofi
dcnce he obtained present 10 Grand jury VINO Wou
have right to prefer new Indictment
The Court suggested whether, allowing the admission ot
Mrs HAYES TO witness who testified the last trial, that
she was not the wife of William Hayes. and she having
been already tried aud acquitted so that her testimony
would not affect her whether she could not be made wit
in the case.
The counsel objected that the Court should make such
an allusion After some remarks their part and few
words from the DistrcAttorney an order for "0 Pros
egB, entered -,
Messrs Whiting and Bu-eed then moved that me stll
further order be made by the Court, that SAID William
Hayes be discharged from the ohense
The Judge replied that the object OF the counsel Il ev-
IDENTITY obtain order which be used hereafter 70
preyest the possibility of any subsequent indictment A.
ar a the present Indictment concerned he nee Inc
object OF the motion il for the purpose above Inc Cout
clearly can see that there may be Of things by which
the testimony Of person, provided she II not hs wie
might used a future indictment for or against hi
The counsel thought the remark not relevant ,
The Judge said it Mr.. Hayes is at liberty should
Le see fit 10 make affidavit that he and sad party are
married. As the stands j. 10 be presumed thy are
nOe Ii the present motion is 10 be considered IN court
a. insisted upon by counsel then the consideration OF the
fact j. relevant The Court must deny the notion