New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-14
FAL.E IMPRISONMENT.

extr .ordipsry system We have IN this city aod
vicinity for the administration of criminal justice.
II has already been abundsntly estaols ned that
there is great variety Of ofenses-many OF them
of very serious cbaIscter-for which the guilty
parties are never brought to judgment, and II
punished at oil, are only punished BY blsckmail
levied upon them by the police Aud now we
have to dsy in the testimony Of Judge Moore, to
be found in another column, counter balancing
in. lance Of punishment, to the extent Of years
imE risOpment, dealt out at the mere discretion OF
q Judge without any trial, merely because the
Judge was not altogether satisfied as 70 the chsrac-
ter OF the parties, whence be was led to think as
he himself expressed it, " That it might do them
good to leep them locked up awhile"
The case, as stated By the Judge, was this
Some time in the Summer or early Autumn 1854
three colOred persons were arrested, charged with
a burglar! in Brooklyn After beirg kept in Jail
some three or four months, their trial came on in
January, 1855. Of this trial we have no par
tculars. Doubtless it was very hasty affair
for protracted as the trials are Of those who have
friends ard MONEY. those who have neither are
commonly disposed Of in our criminal courts in
the most expeditions and unceremonious manner
Probably therefore, it cid not take the Jury more
than from five to ten minutes to find toe whole
thrse guilty in spite of the protestations of limo
cence on the part Of two of tbem-a nan and his
wife
When Judge Moore, who evidently has 8 con-
science and means to do the right thing, came to
sentence these prisoDers-it being serious affair."
of which the punishment would not be less than
ten years in the state Prison-he seems to have
thought it his duty to inquire little into the case
One of the convicted parties confessed his guilt
but be declared the entire innocence OF the man
and his n ife convicted along with him-a declsra-
ton in which they also persisted The Judge also
now discovered, apparently FOX the first time, that
they had two witnesses in New. York by whom
their innocence, as they said, could be established
Determined now to do what the Jury had not
doDe-tbat is, to try the case-the Judge deferred
sentence of the two; butt being late in the term,
and be being evidently person not remarkably
prompt in bis movements he put off the inquiry
till the next term, mean while RENTING to jill his
un.entenced prisoners. At the next term the
witnesses were sent for, and from the story they
told the Judge became quite satisfied that had
these wtnts ses been produced on the trial. as they
should have been, the Jury never would have con-
victed the prisoners.
Having thus satisfied himself of their innocence
% to the charge of which they had been convicted,
the judge, being, it seems, of an iDquisitve dispO
sition, proceeded to inquire generally into their
character, of which he heard rather bad account.
~ - ara Laar .kuka
and the man not much better; whereupon it came
into the benevolent judges head that little i'm
prisonment would do them good. So be sent
them back unsentenced to jail, not because he
had auy authority to do so but out Of pure good
WILL it would seem, to them and the public, aud IS
a matter of moral discipline. These two colored
people thus disposed of, it was hardly to be ex-
pected that so prosy judicial funcsionary as
Judge Moore represents himself to be, should
trouble himself anything more about them.
In fact, for augtt that appears they might have
died and rotted in JAIL had not their case attracted
the attention of Dir. Beale the Agent of the
Prison Discipline Society. As to what passed
between Mr. Beale and Judge Moore there is some
discrepancy in Il testimony of those gentlemen.
II would seem as If the Judge, after the csse had
been brought to bis attention had wished to shift
of further action for the relief of the innocent
aid unsentenced prisoners upon Mr.. Beale; but
that gepteu an declined to interfere, and the
Judge. being thus driven to it, wrote to the Gov
ernor to obtain pardon. But before any answer
to this letter arrived the story came before the
public iD the testimony of Beale before the Police
Committee after which, (but by no
me abs, according to bis own account, by reason Of
which, Judge Moore fastened to set the two
prisoners at MISUNDERSTANDING them on their
own recoepizsnces. Perhaps he imagined that
had they remained in prison they too might have
BEN brought before the Committee as witnesses
As it is, they may be found, and the Committee
ought We think, by all means to have their
account Of the matter.
For the conduct Of Judge Moore 10 this Affair
we have DOW 8 word or two to say. In what be
did, and in what he did not do, he equally set law
and common sense at defiance. In the 6rst place
he should have recollected that ia cases where
prisone rs have 10 counsel, it is the duty Of the
Judge to act as their counsel. he should not have
waited till sitter the conviction before he found out
that they had witnesses But after they were
convicted it was bis duty, after hearing what they
bad to say to proceed forth with to sentence them
What shadow Of authority had he for defsrring the
sentence from term to term and year to Year,
Having sentenced them, if satisfied OF their 10
soceuce, be was bound to represent the case
to the Governor, it being tbs Governors
and not the Judges province 70 remit