The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-16
The French Railway Frauds-A Decision or
the Supreme Court.

INC SoptChDO NOWKte
In the Supreme Court on Saturday Judge
Davies pronounced decision on the motion
made by the counsel for Carpenter, Grelet, Pa
| rot and Nine. Dubud, alleged to have been con-
cerned in the late frauds upon the Northern
Railway of France to vacate the order by which
the defendants above mentioned are held under
arrest The Court pronounced lengthy deci-
sion on the subject holding all the defendants
except Eugene Greet and Felicite Dubud. With
| regard to the last banned persons the Court held
they were entirely innocent of any completely
with the frauds, and granted the motion for their
discharge, conditional upon their g STIMULATING
not to commence any action for unlawful impri-
sonment.'
We call particular attention to the condition
annexed to the discharge of Grelet and
Madame Dnhud u appears to US that
the court was guilty OF an extra judicial act in
requiring such stipulation from these defend
ants. The motion simply was that the defend
ants should be discharged upon certain points set
forth by their counsel Upon that motion alone
the Court was Gated upon to decide. The Court
did decide that there was no evidence against
either Of them. and they were consequently offer
ed their release, a'te, prolonged imprisonment.
The Court then attempts to deprive them of their
clear legal right "a bring an action for damages
against the Roth, cnllds, or Belmonts or whoever
has set on foot The prosecution against them
That the defendants bring such an action is
fully proven by Judge Davies own decision, and
no stipulation tina, he could force upon them can
take away such right II they should decline to
accept their release upon the terms laid down by
the bench, they can. no doubt obtain an uncon,E-
tioDal discharge upon the facts set forth
while, on the other hand, if they should leave
the Jail, the decision will undoubtedly be re-
viewed by the general term, and the conditions
at once set aside as illegal and unjust. If these
parties are, as Judge Davies says, after very
careful consideration entirely innocent, why
were they arrested at ALL And if they were ar
rested wrongfulIy, why deny them the remedy
that is open to every defendant 50 persecuted2
The very remarkable verdict of petit jury "out
West "-"not guilty, but recommended to leave
the State us the only parallel that we can
remember to Judge Davies decision; and we do
not think that either ruling will be quoted as
valuable precedenrs in the books
The decision is oily half way affair at the
best, although the learned Judge did introduce
it with preliminary puff that he had very care
fully considered The case. The defendants are
not held tor ieonious act !; they are detained to
satisfy civil suit to recover the value Of the
stock certificates alleged to have been stolen.
They were first arrested upon the criminal
charge, and it vas held by their counsel that the
cause of action shown if any, is that of q tort
committed in France, and therefore out of the
jurisdiction Of the courts of this State. The
United States Court should. if this were shown,
grant an oder for their extradition under the
treaty made for such cases This point was not
passed upon by the Court and consequently the
defendants are still in the anomalous and absurd
position of heipg held to answer crini-
DalIy and civilly at the same time. The
absurdity of this position is apparent. II A cones
in possession OF a watch claimed by Is, the latter
cannot prosecute the former criminally aud bring
a civil action 10 recover the value OF the watch
at one and the same time. II i ackno Wedges
that A simply owes him debt, be cannos at he
same time prefer charge that he has been robbed.
The question OF jurisdiction was distinctly raisd,
but altogether overlooked by the Court inits
" very careful consideration of the case.
The point next raised is whether or not he
shares OF stock alleged TO have been taken wsre
property, according TO the meaning which he
law attaches TO the term property. 4 powerful
array OF authorities was adduced 70 sipw
that the certificates of the shares we're
not property in legal sense. They rere-
sented values Of the company; but the Illegal
transfer of them neither caused the right OF pro-
perty in them TO pass away from the true owner,
nor did ID injure the railway company to the
value OF one iprthing. How, then, can actor lie
against the defendants? hisquestion was very
carefully considered" out Of sight by the Coirt,
as also was the objection that the complaint lid
not refer to the Law by which the railway c,m-
pany was incorporated, If such law exists The
Court ignored all these questions Of law and led
the defendants simply upon the facts alleged on
the face Of the complaint, partially sustained in
the opinion OF the bench by the confessions md
admissions Of the defendants The Court held
that it would be dangerous to public moras TO
yacate the order for the arrest Of these def,nd-
ants. IL is not question OF morals that Judge
Davies was called upon to decide, but poir of
Law, upon which he should have been prepared
10 pronounce So far as the morality OF the az
fair il concerned. there il not much TO be sat on
either eide. Morality is scarce article in stock
jotbing operations, whether on the Bourse or in
Wall street, and the sensation created 10 Euope
by The revelations Of these French operators as
published in the HERALD, shows cunclusively hat
there has been an immense amount Of sgnding
on all hands.
Under alt the circumstances. Il would be .nly
right for Judge Davies to review and ament his
rather remarkable decision.
Il III T. L. A Il II T ~ l. VS..