New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-09-09

pessea OF the psisoOes no. befee e,tbS Of tbsss
yalzss 10 give jurisdiction o. her person.
Ire action o. the committing Magistrate u aot bad
10 ia nature aod there is cot before asy svh eeS
evidence TIA. tae question as presented here hes bsas
iaoieiaily determined by any Court or Odioes bsrss
| j,risoiotion to pas upon Il.
| These pre.m nary obieCtors being Gsposet o. q
remains Tor 10 decide whether this Is proper eAss
for bail ana II CO. TO dix tao amount Of BAH proper v
be taken. u this propercase for bah Society hes
| iight when crime has been committed, TO puAsh
the sa.scr o. and Tor tat purpose when facts sae
| shown which indicate with reasonable degree a
probability that any certain person is guilty OF IT.
the Fight OF society 10 have such person pnspcsy
brought TO Ta Tia, his guilt innocence may DO as
certaiDed.
For the purpose OF securing hi presence 70, trsi.
| and If convcted subsequently, for punishment, -
may lawfully be restrained of his personal liberty Al
detained in custody, Lplefs he elect 70 give such
pledge 80 affords reasonable security hs. he viii A.
pear Of the time and place fixed Tor trial Such
able security for the appearance rs all that society hss
| right to in that respect And when the cnn:
charged and ether circumstance are such that bss~
viii afford easonabe assurance that he Will appear
to stand trial il is the right Of the accused that he
bond should DO accepted in lieu of his personal detsa
ton for the time. This is the law of our land. IL
consistent with reason and humanity. II answers ~
the necessities Of society and with the least amoa8
Of pry alton to the individual consistent With the psr-
noun. right Of society.
The right to detaiu for trial by restraint Of PER
.onal liberty is limited to tho necessities Of socsety.
necessity for personal detention does not arise cad
resort TO il is not warranted by law, but Is Illegal IN
lust and opprs ssve What the rights OF society A.
what those Of the individual in this case VIII osae
in peounary penalty afford reasonable security thaA
the cCased vii appear In compliance with II aud cab
nit herself 20 trial. The forfeiture OF such bead
would merely give TO the State the amount o. ne
penalty in money, which would not afford compensa-
ton for failure of justices and in examining thus
question an 10 look chiefly if not entirely, to ths
probability of It's answering the end Of rendering her
production sure. In determining whether such secs-
y would be adequate the circumstances Of the oass
must be considered. Prominent among them are the
nature of the oenso charged and the penalty 70 tss
low upon conviction And first, as to the nat.re 81
tie ofleI seNhat amount OF ocium would attach 10
convicton OF t. The production of child falsely pre-
tending il TO be born of parents whose child would be
entitled to property, with the intent to divert svcn
property from the legd channels of descent sn1
thereby detraud those who are legally Gu
| titled to tan attempt by the production Of
fictitious heir TO deraud real heirs of their legal
rghts-sn attempt by grand fslsehood, sustained
by numerous other untluths, to deprive persons o.
property to Which they are legally entitled.ths
to suggest the moral grade OF the oense whoe
ehould determine the easure Of odum to be visted
upon conviction. Next what IL the legal penalty -
which she is exposed This is imprisonment In The
State Prison for a term not exceeding ten year,"
| The medium between the greatest and the least
| amount of punishment allowed by law would BE- i've
years imprisonment and this is certainly sufficient 20
make one shrink from exposure 10 it, and seek to avoid
it with 10 little zeal, and without regard to small
sacrifices. delicate woman. especially, must Do sup
posed to look with honor at the possibuIy OF sucn
result. Next come the probabilities OF convcuoa'
and all experience has shown that this consideration
usually the prominent in the human mid IN de-
torminipg the amount of sacrifice to be made snA
hazards TO be encountered for the sake Of avoiding
| THAI The prospect Of any term in state Prison -
usually esteemed by the accused OF vastly more cos
| sequence than the extent OF the duration Oh unt
| term. The mind shrinlSs from contemplating at
length what il 10 follow after entering that sepulcher
tIay M me- Ia re
the succession of events in that other world aud, i
most purposes limits It's survey to the yawnng Pos-
tails the approach to them and the moment Al wnicn
they are to I've passed. The chances OF convection.
then are of the first Importance in calculating the
probability Of ones appearance for trial in compliance
with bond. The facts in this case, as presented by
the prosecution are that the accused after feguing
pregnancy for sufficient time was found IN her cham
ber 10 the night in bed having by her child, which,
she said. when asked by some visitors, was the on
spring OF horself and DIR. Buidell. She had pre-
viously claimed 70 be the wife Of DR.. Burdel VIE
| then deceased having a considerable estate.
which # she were is wife and this were their chld,
twculd DC entitled to inherit. The intent on her
part, from the evidence OF the prosecution seems
pretty certainly 10 have been At some time 20 make
claim behalf of this child 10 the estate OF the de-
ceased Dr. Burdell; and the Grst great questio. y.
this fraudulent production OF child. falsely
pretending it 10 have been born OF parents
with the intent thereby TO intercept the Inheritance
The qucson seeIrs to divide itselfin several:
]. Was II a fraudulent production OF the chld
,. Did she falsely pretend that II was born Of GER
ain parents
3. Would child of the parents of whom she pro-
tended it born be entitled to inherit?
4. Was il her intention by this fraudulent produs-
ton TO intercept the inheritance
First: Was the production OF this child, under thS
circumstances fraud in law! Was any fraud in Law
pepe.Iated Was any fraud attempted at that ttssf
against whom was it attempted Who was By this
production Of the child defrauded attempted 70 -
defrauded! Was il DIR. DE La Montagie, or CsPt.
Speighis or Inspector Dilks, to whom che ea'd In
answer to their inquiries, that it was her child Tho
child az there, and was carried thther, directly or
Indirectly by her. But she had made no statenssf
or claim respecting it, except 10 answer certa. ques
tons proposed to her, and i she had then procismoe
that il was the offspring of herself and DR.. Burdel,
do not that il would be material. She INTENDED
probably at future time TO perpetrate fraud Of
TO attempt one ard this child may have been provided
for the purpose as means or instrument " DC usos
in it, accomplishment. She intended at future hms
fauducntiy 10 produce that child and to assert ib
rgLts the offspring of herself and Dr. Burdea. TO
the property left by him. She had made no sucn
claim, however, and ii seems TO me quito doubtful
the fraudulent production contemplated by the statute
was there made at the time she was arrested N her
course and without dwelling 10 show by what process
Of oniDg arrive at the result further than sug
gested above my conclusion Is thst there Is lat ssstD
great doubt, even assuming the facts TO be exacuy
az claimed by the prosecution and unacceptable OF ~
contradiction or modification, whether fraudulent
production such the stat1te contempstes, and such
a. is declared to be felony and punishable by n.
p1sopmcbt nj hard labor for ten years was there maAs
and completed
Seeosd: Did she iasely pretend that i was born Of
certain payents-heIself and DIR. Burdell7 She css-
iaiDly did if understand the meaning OF her language
Thud: Would child of the parents Of whom she
pretended was bomtbat is Of herself and DIR. Bar
dell-be eutiiled to inherit There no evidence ~
claim il would ON the contrary, the claim or pretsase
ofhe accused in that respect substituted and releA
OF by the prosecution for the legal fact She had pro-