The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-20
Court OG General Sessi ons.
Before Hon. Judge Stuart.
ATTTMPT AT BURGLARY.

sa Before Hon. Judge Stuart.
ATTSMPr AT BURGLARY.
F l9-The frst case brought for trial this morn
vas that Of Daniel Kane, alias Martin Flanagan,
gsed looking urchin, charged with attempting to com.
II burglary on the premises Of William More % Elm
rect The only evidence sinst the prisoner wa, that
was found on the evening Of the 9Th Of February by
at gentleman having previously discovered that az.
pts had been made 10 picS the lock Of his hall door,
Frdict not guilty.
BURGLARY IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
John Bro.s was charged with breaking into the dwell
house OF Ane rev G. Pierson, of I79 West Twenty
t street the night Of the nth of January with
Tent TO commit some crime therein. The complainant
~ Awakened about one O'Clock in the morning
tre noise OF some person opening the hall door.
waited thinking POSSIBLY that i might be some Of
Joining that IN which slept he started up. opened
ooor, and saw two men, who immediately attempte |
escape. Compa infant pursued them to the street
Ling "stop thief anu of the men, while runnin {
gay, was arrested by Officer Houston, within 200 feet
Mr. Piersons door, Mr. Phillips, for the Defence
nded that there evidence OF the outer door
ing broken open. The Judge charged that the jury
they found that the prisoner had entered the dwelling
use through open door, but had broken open an
per door, could find verdict of guilty OF burglary in
second degree, which they accordingly did Sen
peec TO eight years and two months in the Stat.
ison
ANOTHER BURGLARY
John Cunningham was indicted, with Patrick Lar
(who pleaded guilty. for purgarously entering ths
Of BERNARD Riley, of Second street and First
enue, on the night of the LIST Of January last, and
ealpg thence watch and quantity Of silver CON- of
aggregate value of 1872 The burglary was proved to
was not recognized. The facts tending to connect
prisoner with the offence were that when arrested
the I'd OF january he admitted having been with Lar
the description 81 that stolen was also found in his
session, particularly English shilling identified by
complainant. Verdict OF guilty" with recon-
ndation to mercy. Sentenced t. two years and two
Pnths in the state prison. Larkin sentenced to
rec years and two months.
CHARGE OF GRAND LARCENY.
o1is HOFFMAN indicte, for ste ang watch from
show window of Jacob Lewis, 1858 Pearl street. the
b Of February inst Catherine Rooney, a girl in the
PIoy OF the complainant, testified that she saw de.
ldant coming from the window with the watch which
put IN his pocket; but from various circumstances
duced Ia evidence by the defendanthis demeanor In
store Of Mr.. Lewis being the very opposite Of cri-
NAL and his previous good ch aracter proved by nu-
rOus witnesses-the testimony of the witness for the
psecutton was completely rebutted. Verdict of ac-
n the matter Of the People u.s. Herman Ressenbaa.-
defendant Is before the Court upon two indct uents
false pretencss. Counsel for the accused moves to
ind without any proofs Of the Commission Of the Of
ices preferred On the argument Of the case for the
scner and for the people, IL conceded aud agreed
the one side and on the other, that the premina-
afidavits Of the complaining Witnesses which
npany tine Indictment, contain all the testimony
(sn before the Grand Jury, and on which they
lining papers with care, and II Is apparent that
~ rot only fail to exhibit proof sufficient to in
but are without any legal evidence whatever OF
& being manifest, and having regard TO the con-
|sion-by the learned attorney tor the peope-that
same facts, matters and things testified to By
! der onents when before the Grand Jury, and that
Grand Inquest had no other evidence, knowledge
information in the premises than what 10
ssed by the sidavits In question-t is clearly GER.
that the defendant has been indicted for crml.
offences, each felony, without legal proof, and,
rsfore, without any proof Of their Preparation And
upon this state Of facts, (given preliminary for
ter view OF the case the Court is moved go behind
indictments and take Judicial notice Of this want Of
of FOL the purpose Of sttpg them aside thus raising
question, both new and important, whether . crmi.
court can pass behind the record to earn II there
any proof before the Grand Inquest going to estab
the offence alleged with view to quash an indict.
mt lawful in its composition in accordance with the
|es Of pleading and importing absolute verify upon
face. The criminal books afford almost no authority
the exercise OF such power, and ] cannot find .
cedent among adjudcated criminal cases either In
country or England, for so bold entrenchmsnt OF
heretofore scsrcey disputed right of grand jury
ndict whom they pleased, when they pleased, how
pleased and for what they pleased, with proof
of, they pleased, defying the court of which they
less than q ordinate branch agaust all review
acts however demanded by the rights OF the citizen
reeded for ends OF public justice; nor yet Ia Their
decison involving principle OF law or rule
ninsl procedure gong to interdict such innovation
en- prudently resorted to for the attainment OF
In aud the administration Of that justice which
d in Jacobs Ldg Dictionary, upon several authori.
cited, is 'sbi or declaration Of complaint dra IN
in form OF law, and exhibited for some criminal
nee" at isl says Chief Justice Holt, "a plain,
ct aud certain narration Of offence committed by
person. and Of the Necessary circumstances that
bcur to ascertain the fact and its NATURE An in
tment 10 the better language of Mr.. Hawkins, p c.,
accusation made IN a prescribed legal form upon
dsnce by number OF authorized persons OF some
mnal offence against the peace OF the people and
criminal prosecution" The question recurs, may
III Of complaints drawn up 10 legal form" be i'm
pched for any cause. That II may, for reasons,
not be disputed; and II for some, why not all
where II is manifest that the body Indicting has
jurisdiction over the subject matter OF which the
usation is predicated. II court may look upon the
of an Indictment TO see II IT contains all the eie
Bts necessary 70 its validity, why may II not 20
fr to the persons who preferred It, to see IL they
re duly authorized to do SOTO learn II they were
bstituted Of the number required by the statute,
so, learn II they are all qualified according TO law
the lIet This, it is said, is not denied Very
BID. Why, then, has not the court power TO inquire
er any misconduct Of one Grand Jurors TEND
vitaie their proceedings of others going to the
udce OF their acts: or 10 discover whether although
rims has been proved II did not also appear that IL
committed in a foreign State or country, or II per
rated within the pale OF their Jurisdiction. whether
vas not ancient to be without the cognizance OF
criminal law; or II within, 1t had not been shown
the testimony of witness Infamous Of crime aud un
rdened Of q conviction for felony and further, Of
mattersS AL this, take it-certainy all except
latter instance-wiil not be denied by any one who
given the subject their attention The grounds,
to me- fer interference by the court Ia
tAs nature that the Grand Jury Is wholly without
hority to indct upon the well settled principle that
jurisdiction by any criminal magistracy can obtain
er the subject matter Of criminal offence, except
on sworn legal testimony before duly constituted
rty; no jurisdiction can be had Of the body Of a
minal otencer except by reason OF his personal pre-
nee befo-e the power having cosnzanee Of the crime
this be good law, with all the force Of truth and the
ength OF justice, how may Grand Jury indct any
crime having for want Of proof jurisdiction Of the
bject matter OF the offence IL they do, why may not
70 behind the record and relieve the accused Of
cedipx imprisonment with the care, expense and de-
hdation OF public trial. The answer is not that
ere IL any Law to prevent, but that has been
ne which, with this Court, would be sufficient, II ns
to the citizen did not otherwise require; but when
manded by what are Ia my judgment the legal RICH Is
the accused, Ia no answer, and shall not stay this
urt from prudent and careful exercise Of its own
p-e Of duty. It Is, In my judgment, quite enough
ut Grand Jury II licensed 70 act In secret upon
sts testmonyn respect 10 all matters and persons,
host permitting them TO ndict individuals contrary
the rules OF law, and where crime has been
pvedas. for instance, witness TEXTILES before the
urt and Jury; spectator hears bystAnder say that