New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-13

teri aud Mir Barker wa nos member Of ideatheA ut
The Jur, retired and a-r .b.e-cs Of to horr. e..
stated that they had there Wa -
I4oseet d dong They tAsrevpoa ai.chssssd
SUPREME coURr-srrer.L TrsM-MaseH is-BcAs.
Judge DAVIES
Wm. II. Langley egt Isaac Il. Waldun -hotica
for attachment grated Reference to Henry seadder -
''Ss Nam Sss'ssi Baker agt Joseph to .s
Hirnm Perry asi. Frederick wetzel, &c.--Mo.is.
granted. without eests
SUPREME CoURT-srreiAt TrRa-DEeKxsrR, issx
Before Jnoge PEABODY.
THE APrELLATE BRANCH or TBE nASisx covRr--
wngS AS APPEAL LIES TO Tux COMMON PLEAS
der Of snsls justice does not lie 70 tie 6om@Ss Hs.s
directly. The statute of lass lib GIT, sec: cIesias The
from ali judgments by siHse Justice, requires thai
such appeal p'eoede appeal to the Cos OF Connss
White ast Anderson
PE1opr, J.-ln this case a judgment was entered
in the Mge Cont BY order Of single Justice in favor of the
aiptf From ihst ndsnent an appeal wa' taken directly
he Jurisdiction Of he Common Pleas entertain appeal
used oIea in that Court Ans the appeal the ConsssA
Justices snd Clerk Of that Court for execution h' sds
rn IN hat Court on he ground thst The sPI.s oe, sps
rue Court s, force. The Marine Court refused 70
directing iSc T. The claim the part Of sAs
That no appesl lies from the Marine Court the Commea
That il an appeal does lie ALL lies only om tho oea
eral Tenn composed Of the hreo Justices. jadsmsse
| entered by order Of the Court thus organised
plaintiff he ened to relief be asks The last prspo-
lion urged the around that the Court below having
branch Shieh arTeas from he Judgment Of a'sse jsss
be tsher for review tho deesa.n !, Sosaa on ss,s':,
In the People rel Fs,nsIs ss the ,S'ess S. o. The M
for rqondi1ys to con pei the General Term OF TAO
nal Law fc tie decision Of single justice s
6euor Tern denied the motion and decided that such snsp
BY single usoe does lie to the General Term Of that
court IN case IKE that snd en-, les % s Ia onn;os ves
I'VE think that an appeal lies the General Term from asy
bs fBS wer f cause was tried with or THIS
power siyen BY the laws Of 1883 chapter ei7'
to tho S lsspf fs dsSy O the %
ho Gc1c SSs II gs he SsIGs1 s%S cos s .
the Common Pleas perhaps TO both at his pleasure hm
ssnSs5'H GiiasS + erTpe..y ofdsSei Sy
Prior the sate Of is aIles from ns 'ss ps. o. u
w. but Marine Court prior 10 that statute had no oenes
cd The Der Term and conferred powers Of review
IKE the res i did ia ,h without ps sspr9sy ssa re-
vou,y entertained ,he,o appeals Or Fs. sc1s m rs.sss
for no made the that Court or 70 tho course
Of rrace den existing The nppellste powers Of tho Cost
OF CS%nS9 pS' Ti % Marine Court The s udsmcn.
that Court then was tne oy Que co",u seHoas
SS s y 's made Ssy lS hat statute gave The
powers Of review and the question Is what effect had
Ills endCwment Of the Marine Court on the po ssL. Of The
Common Pess had s@y May that Court still enter'.n
Nne Comt a. il did When the latter Court power
Court could Or appeal from such Judgment
he taken fret to the General Term OF that Court and
be exhausted before the aid Of the Appellate Court can bs
An etpea from one another ordinarily and in the
express provision 10 the contrary lies only from s
e 1 Teecsed and Sproved By the Court Of Appeals i.
Ciseo end Const 9 and i Is certainly quite
appellate Jurisdiction. Willie tho court Of original ja-
Tdciion las of review and relief which have not been
ed Cafi
in hsmODy with tine theory on which the appe ae coufs
rroyided for oly be e.psdient AFTER tho power.
S,.1,ed s sr' sS wSeD SSS from II. sd orsns
ti,n the court, further appeal or eviow or more
grave deheroion and udsns mt can be had ueron Wbe
However tho branch DEPARTMENT OF that constituted
,s dongs In other depaens aud consequently
cr should been apps ssd to- IL would be incon
sIs with our as Of the @ snd or
iug the It's Inferior ssior Tho Breumpon should y
nay conInlsed and this presumption mus, remain usa
s % Of % Ss $ is' fGS' Ss p.is . co
should be accessible suors only when all the powers OF s
rsn lad been applied the usce of that Cour sshsussa
TIE psry has need Of the aid OF the appellate Court unn
or trbunsi Of Tire Court from which he would TO the
TO sThSx ar, SnsL'n, S S, Ss Thsss
DO no, find and my conclusion 49, ins' sn sppea oT
.tssce 10 The Ger ers Term of tho Marine Court THIS tia
practice the Supreme Court and TO this practice reference
is To- be ssereissd whsthei sn appeal lie. the Comma.
Pleas judgment entered BY order Ot the oenef cs9
il l. not neoeseaTy that should copder as the appeal la t
css wes taken from judgment entered BY order
nss & ;'ies dos no, IT, iom Judgment of The G.ss
Cou entered By order Of single Justice Srse 70 .ns &
Pleas hut must in the rst Lssnee De s.'n =" VIC ~
| Pelste brsCeh Of the Court In which II onsina'e''
! COURT OF sEssIoNs-ksrch i2-Beore Recorder Ssirn
John Bs nnett pie eded guilty Of grand larceny m
steans eweIy tie value Of 70 from Marcus Jacobs Ma
81 o7ef street lie sentenced to the State Prison tor sws
Bepismin Greer. "tbe confidence man." was ar
rairrsS on an Indictment charging him with obtaining Eoo4s
uree fse rreefs ses from Thompson Lewis No. 80 Broadway
To this indictment he entered pes Of guilty ID seven ose
Greer stated that be had nothing ay why sentence shog
rot 10 sssed upon but be would Ike 70 say tow wesaA
A0er few NO inets Of hesitation, he stated that the rssshs
lie tgJ intended 10 make bad under the 'no4 80
occasion smost escaped his memory He was oeepy e%g
the West 70 Pi1o hs tn1 oeo
80 sn ne. ~ ~, in.lion bot wsys found o,hsr sp
3 Iefse linn He coold get nothing to do without city
ifsrsnees snd Heos . sn, s ss 70 co. the dSosor az
Tiled for an nstrlnent Of bis fee stating that u IL wS n9
IA nj. ssopa services should As bis wifs w.s
[ EFT under hE care he FELT almost a. ho could
fav done t ensble the sust TO continue bis rvces
sd tir 10 arrsLsed the plan which brousht him here
yoor eas You nu remember hi. the first tus yes
b.se laeS issS sa s s the court could s~s
yo1 IN es. Of conviction would have been forty yearswhsh
Toen . pso 1 You ere risn Of sSueston ssd q
sIcet sddre-. and your talents had been rsbdy sppA
fS1 20 s a.ue would ju.sed
sentence you the highest term the law pcmits Ine
q the Court, therefore that you DO Fnprn'neo
Samuel Thompson was tried for robbery upon,, sss -
rerson Of A. Dr,y Of No il2 Delaney street, OF A'
The Jury brought In verdict Of Not Guilty ,....~
Thomas Eastwood was convicted Of petty larceny
and being HI. second oHense was sentenesa !" '"' s'
Tor 65ss ,ran ss SH nsjced nd for wayie Joseph Dor
a,Ss5 sav 20 ssszut and ba, and "@ ssof 70 tas