New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-17

counsel for the defendant and Thomas r. r,svenor Of
Dunkirk as counsel for the Supervisor. Divers OBJ
iections wese raised by defendants counsel among
which were the following:
1 That the warrant was insufficient for informally
2. That il was not indorsed as required by statute.
g. That the magistrate had no jurisdiction for the
REASON that conviction rendered the defendant nfa-
mous by deriving hin OF the right andincapacitatng
him from sitting as Juror in ike cases nc could
not therefore be proceeded against except by present
ment By Grand Jury. The defendants counsel also
contended for these reasons that the act was ia
constitutional inasmuch as 1t authorized triai and
conviction by magistrate without The intervention Oh
n Grand jury, The principal authorities relied upon
by defendants counsel were. the bill of rights and the
sixth section of art of the Constitution The coun-
sci of the Supervisor contended that the oense dld
not come within the denomination infamous crime
at common law defined by statute, that the con-
viction was no more a disqualification than the keep
ing of the LIQUOR. He referred 70 the Constitution,
and several acts while New-York was a Colony, to
show in what class of eases Jury trial had been pre-
yiously used: 10 Kent's Commentaries, Constitution
of other States and decisions of Ohio, also 10 Hills
Rept. p. IS, People agt. Duffy. the defendants
counsel took the objection that the complaint or
warrant did lot contain the proper negative
ayermens 10 constitute oenee under the mas
much as II did not that the liquor sold was not
imported liquor. The counsel of the Supervisor
tended that the absence of these averments did not
form constituent part OF The oiense aud there the
avermenis were properly omitted That the tsct
peculiarly personal to the defendant and within his
knowledge and not a fact of which the complainant
could be supposed have any knowledge even the
ability TO prove also that the statute itself in terms
places the burden of proof upon the defendant TO show
himself within the exception. Several authorities
were cited both Sides and all the above points dis
cussed at length by counsel and all decided against
the defendant, who then pleaded TO the complaint
Not Guilty. A jury was called by The People. The
defendant counsel then asked the Court TO compel
the companants counsel 10 elect which OF the spe
cifcatons in the complaint he would proceed, as
there were four different times that the defend
ant was complained of having sold. The Court
ruled that he might give evidence under all
or any,. and would not compel him TO elect.
The defendants counsel excepted TO all the rulings OF
Court. The trial then proceeded. large number of
witnesses were examined. The cause was summed up
10 the Jury BY ID. Tnghast for the defendants, and
by L. z. Grosvenor for Supervisor. Mr. Grosvenors
speech was worthy the and the cause in which he
was engaged no higher praise is needed. The jury
brought verdict of guilty under three OF the spec
fcations and not guilty as TO the other whereupon
the Court rendered it's judgment, adludgmg the de-
fendant guilty OF q misdemeanor, and imposing fine
of $50 and costs. This being the first attempt in this
county 10 carry the first section of the law into effect
consequently the trial created considerable interest and
excitement: but its result has been death blow to
the hopes of the Devil Legion in this town, and
We hoT that soon the Temperance reform will triumph
all over the State. Yours, TEMPERANCE.