The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-20

n
on sworn legal testimony before duly constituted Au
brty; no Jurisdiction be had OF the body Of
minal oencer except by reason OF his personal pre-
This be good law with all the force Of truth and the
length OF justice how may Grand Jury ndict any
crime having for want Of proof jurisdiction Of the
bject matter OF the offence IL they do, why may not
out 20 behind the record and relieve the accused Of
tcedpg imprisonment, with the care, expense and de-
pdation Of public trial The answer is not that
ne which, with this Court, would be sufficient, II Jus
to the citizen did not otherwise require; but when
manded by what are Ia my judgment the legal rights
accused, II Ia answer, and shall not stay this
urt from prudent and careful exercise OF it, own
b-e Of duty. II Is, In my judgment, quite enough
VIE testmonyfn respect TO all matters and persons,
thost permitting them TO ndict individuals contrary
the rules OF law, and where crime has been
pvedas, for instance, witness textiles before the
Int and Jury; spectator hears bystander say that
evidence Is corruptly false. Upon this, the spec.
kcr goes before the Grand Jury now In session,
q swesrs that the witness testified TO some
Ing which he believes 10 be utterly false, as
men standing hard BY said y was so. And
on this an Indictment IL ordered for perjury Is
ere no relief 10 such case, saves public riai Gao
the Court these facts appearing, quash the indlct
n, for insufhciency OF proof IL not, why mott The
N ansvsr Is, that there Is no authorstivs precedent
not II u time for oue; for, IL controlled BY nothing
grand juries should be bound by the rules Of evi.
tor uron this, more than anything else, depends
citlrens safety. In the OF DR. Dodd, l Leach,
l., 1884, When the defendant was called upon to plead
chaLepget the validity OF the Indictment upon the
Dund that IL found upon the testimony OF neon
tent Witnesses The entertained the objection
le matter was argued By some Of the most able Law
rs ~ TIE English bar before the twelve Judges and Il
y only because they decided that the evidence was
ri and tine Witnesses competent, that the objection
LED Its said know, that the doctrine expressed in
Ia "a se never obtained minority and does not
W prevail "a the Law upon his subject. The con
Ary were quite as essily state l. In the Of Hal
In q renio, 133, the accused, after he had pleaded
IA on goi1g 10 trial, sought a. give evidence rela
e 10 the character ami amount OF proof before
Grad Jury, when the indcinasn Of was found with
~ 10 shos that but one among number Of counts
a. many ms6emsanofs had been proved before the
dy indscting him which denied that would be
imeeseh the grand jurors before traverse jury
panneled TO try ths accused. In the decision Of
Is case, Judge Bronson took occasion TO say that
ipiictment could not be impeached unless upon mo
u by showing that II was mot found upon sufficient
sence or that there any other fsul; or irregus
In shs preeceding Of the Grand jury and added that
6ea the ends Of public justice required II, record
ait 10 be sst ssids and wben DONE that end Of
This lsv IL coutrovertsd BY the assertion that s
the dscsum Of Judge In respect 10 matter not
800 bv the question under the consideration Of the
ursSsrsnted II Il equally the opinion Of one Of the
Issf Jsdess that ever hsld place in tbs suprsme
ust q tSis STATE. An indictnsnt "a the Foundation
10 spsak) Of crinssl prosecution; and u u Il not
u and kwful Ia IN ia ehsrActsr, IL ought 70 be
sSsa Touehing the too undsr coasidsrstsn, IL thsre
= say legal proof-oo matter hov iittls-i woah so'