The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-06-10
The StsDysix aau tragedy.
SUPREME CoUKr.

rm TRIAL BAKER TO SUFFOLK, OR sUcH OTHER
COUNTY AS COUNSEL MAY AGRE UPON.
JUN .-7he People ag Lnns Boxer, james Turner
PasSk AeLaughlin, Cornelius Linn, Charles Van PEI
oSd John Hyla-The defendants stand indicted for the
alleged murder of William Poole in the city and county
Of New York. The Indictment contains many counts
there defendants respectively charging each
primary, and the others secondary principals. The
6rst count charges defendant Baker the most pro-
minsnt actor and the others as being present a. the
scene Of the murder, and aoirg and abettng him. He
elected 10 be tried separately He first tried st
Csunrt Oyer and rermner held before Judge Roose
welt in the county of New York, where the is
laid and the indictment fund.- in Deoem last.
The trial las ed nearly fortnight, and resulted In the
disagreement Of the jurors and their discharge His
trial again commenced Court Of Oyer and Ter
miner held before me, pursuant to an appointment BY
the Chief Jncge of the Cours Of Appeals In the
county, the 14h OF April last, Five hundred jurors
had beer summoned to attend the trial. or that
Der i've only sworn the others having failed to at
lend having bsen rejected challenges for
cause, or ON peremptory challenges in behalf of
was then ordered and hey we're su nmonsd TO stsnd
eventually the oath OF April; that and the
days seven OF the last panel ssFe procursd who from
tons One OF them was excused from serving as he was
conscenuousy opposed to attending to any secular bust
the Jewish sabbath and WAS conceded that the
trial would extend beyond such day The other ak
were sworn, when that panel exhausted. Au,ther
OF two hundred and fifty then ordered for the 29h
Of April On the last mentioned day the 18th juror
obteineo, there remaining in the box when his name
was ORA yn about twenty una ballots The en- panne
hng,of the jury nearly four days. About four
hundIed persons appeared of those two hundred and
twenty two were set aside challenge for having formed
ana expressed an opinion a. 10 the guilt OF
the accused trial. three perem poriy challenged
BY him Twelve were sworn as before stated ard the
naming jurors were excused or eventually dscha -ged
The tfia proceeded shor tine, during which two vie
examined the 18Th OF April On the next
S.y Sns o. The JaFor' swr9 isd attend And
from HIM, that no was confined to his bed,
and probably would remsia SO for cons
deablS period, by intisp osition. Tas counsel for
Baker thegeupon posed the trial should pr ,ceei
before the eleven Jurors who thea pr sent that
the Jew Who had been excused should ait thu trial
and tt us complete the amber and that those who
rernaiI ed Of the list pane should be resumnonsd and
that whose name sho I'D be first dra wn should
be sworn and tae Twelfth Juror. These propo-
BIors were declined bJ toe counsel Tor tbs people, and
the eleven jurors were tneEeupon discharged The court
tbeu sojDuned 10 tae hyst TUESDAY in June and
panel OF ole Thousand ia VAS ordered Subseq uenty
to the Lass mentioned adjournment, certiorsri is
sued by lie District Attorney, and allowed By Judge
Roosevelt removing the ac:iou mo the Supreme Court
On the Gath OF May two oloas made at Special
Tenn held fe0re me in New York, pursuant to an ap-
pon AIDE BY the Chief Jaege OF the Court of APP
peaR ard ais, at the request OF Justices of the First
judicial District. who were o hsrwss eDgsged-one by
the counsel Tor The prisoners, tuat the csriiorai should
be qusshed as havirg teen evidently issued and the
other By Ike counsel for the people ths pacs
uial stcuid be icisrgeo to some other county
The grourd tba. a Dir and impartial trial. Of
the sc'ioa could not be mad in the city and equity
of New York. Tie prisoaer's1 counsel contend IN
move an indictment from the Oyer and Terml-
psr TO the Supreme Court canno. lawfully issue at the
instance of the counsel for the prosecution. There
be oouot but that has always been competent for
the counsel for the crown in England, and since
revolution for tie counsel for the people this Sa
(uness the power has been sb.oga,ed the statutory
prov ions which shalt presently consider t. remove
criminal actions from the Oyer and rsruner CHER
tribunal by cefuorsri MIR. Gritty in his valuable work
criminal law vol ST. after citing several acts
of Parliament restricting Or regulating ths practice upon
til rail- in criminal cases But thess acts ap
ply only TO wrs Of c.rsiorsi the part of eesud
ants ard therefore the and private Or osecu or
msy stl otsin them without affidavit or rec ,enizance
unless sy prohibited by particular statute and
he cites 5th Dumford Esst's Reports 62e; 9Th o. c.
lsa 50 BcsDqnet Pulsr's Reports, 1854; % strsngss
r 9Go- e29; Cowper, r. Is; ls. Eas Is 305, 18TH
EAsts r, 1877; Bacons Aordgnent, title g Certiorar"
c. Aud again the seme author remarks o. 37s) the
the King himself and 70 hi the Court is grant
1t. The English reports fall of cases where
and Terniner to tie Court OF Kings Bsnsh (Which,
"a TO its jliisd-tion In criminsl cases, cor
responds with the sapreme coar. in this s:a.e)
have been istued on the Application Of the Of
fceis the crown Ths in 81 Bosanquet and Fuller
(p. s54 .itei by Nj. chty, before the House Of
Lords, Shi decided hss tribunal the cerd
ora,i could be issued By the officers the crowp not
wfthstsuoing general restrictive words in OF Par
lament re 10 the class cases to which the d.
cision referred Tbs right Of hs prosecution t, ssue
this implicitly recognized this State in tbs
provision of the revised statutes GA R. s., 73 that 'a
Issues OF fac Joined upon any iuci,tmen shall BIZ tried
by jury in The county vhe,e such inc ent touni
unies ter special the Supreme Court shall order
other county" Lis speaks Of the rem9va OF i.
miral causes ~ existing common law practise and
makes attempt restrict it. There sevsrA, case
in courts which sustain the right obtain this pro-
cess in behalf OF the pie In the OF the People
vermIyes and others q c. ren, l41) where o, The
inti;Dents had beer removed to the Supreme Court by
iorsr the District Attorney inc ured VIII sther he
should give tne other indictments the direction
by issuing wits OF certiorafi for their removal to
thai court To which Chief Justice savage answer.
ed "Ycu must take ysur own course on that suhi,ct
You have right to remove th o.her canses or to tnsm
UhE ona hink duia ahfn In Ina
case Of the People Webb lst HI l. 1879, where the
defendant had been indicted for libel On J. Fenimore
Cooper, in the coun yf oseso, the Indictment
moved ty certioIar, on the application Of the Dsric.
Aitcrne from tn O and Tern ner to the Supreme
Court and the place o. trial char ged the county of
hongtmtIy. In that case the cerioTafi to the Oyer
Terminer had been obtained after that Court mai
ordered that the trial should proceed, that nos
prosequi should be entered II is true, said BY
The counsel TO- Baker hs argument that the righ 10
issue The wis in tehAf Of the not dis
puted in hat but the motion chAnas the ace
OF hsl which followed It. warmly conte sted and IL
it had been supposed La tie process had been rreyu
larry obtained, tne objection which wouli hay, been
fatal to the motion would Lave been urged The ssn,s
ct tbs counsel and o. the Court ~ss under the cicum
Stances, signfcsn. against TIE objection. The c3unse
the tiorAr criminal csses by the Dtsric. Attorney
had pxtsttd al common Jaw, il would have teen a,ro-
gstsl ~ sections ana CT chsper IS of the acts OF
1872, snd the Isl section OF cbape II Of the act of
lA7 The act OF 1926 provides 6 u that cerorAri
to Iemove tto the rpre Court any indictment pending
shall be efsctuAl unless alo~td by Justice Of the
sulreu eCourt, Chen CT cut Judge and q that be-
foie allowing any such wsitfthe tcer TO VIII appca
ton fhocA be mace should take from the defendant
recot nzncs with suree cjLdH ned that the defendant
presscu irg sush wit will appear At The return day
the.e in the Supreme Court and ab6e the oreers and
rules Ct such Court and the lst on OF the ac OF ls4
mere mpts the defendants who may be ind tor
treason, nurcer the first degree, and vho
may be in custody from the necessity ct entering into
any reoeapzanee Tor their appearance i, the supreme
Court If the 1st section Of the OF 1929 had stood
alcneas that merely regulated the practice and I'D
purport to take away rgntit might have been
stTued H. inc u6e ctrforsris issued behalf OF the pso
pie. But the secord ion-stbough Il specifies the
proeeos 10 general terms-evidently refers such
might be allowed in bths OF the defendants The prose.
cutou could not lie required to give gn'z,nce for
the uct OF the 6eiep cond ion sipg
the writ There 20 statutory provision involving
an oro except n the SIN ion Of the Act for the
Preyenun Of lnteDpsrsnoe, Psrperm and .ime (lsws
ofle55 up s45-7), which provides that appeal and
the ssIvi ct notice tAsreof shall De OF efec in
behs II OF The sefsndant c3nplsinant Jul. he thsl
deliver 70 the magistrate undertaking the
the Of $500 with one more suretfss con-
di ioDtc, among o.rer hi. gs that the deiendant