New-York daily tribune., 1857-09-28

81 tbe Court to the fact that IN indieses, II
changed from the Sessions 70 the Oyer and Texmiscr
not by q wit such - this, ba. By IN order, Which
order must be served vpon the .opposng attorNevv
The Court might AK whetAes this motion vss made
N good faith, OF whether |. was mere trok- Tho
petition Of this woman showed upon IL fsce tAst
granted. and that it made in good faith. He ece
tenaed that the objection urged yesterday thas hs
was discretionary wr,, settled beyond doubt ~
The csse Already cited by him.
sgf. kurke bad no spphcatica whatever. In It dc
people bad no intereet The case came up from .
Justice Court, aud the indictment xas amply fer
misdepesnor and BOT for felony II was 8 priys.s
action between private psrties Tor the recovery q
7. pc cperfy He urged ae he urged yesterdsy that
this neither writ Of night nor Of courss, but We
position be cited 4th Burrows 2,45S; Chy, Csin.
law 3,S.79 The wit is only granted, Of coase 6
the instance Of the public prosecutor and q
the instance of the except for the .roses
reasons He quoted further from Burnss Justce aad
there it was distinctly laid down that this WIT WI
only be granted when asked Of the defendaat vhss
there questions Of law involved which ought nesc
IIedSS Se Cos to oS.sIPSe Ss ss ss. 10
tizance put in, the granting Of the wiz only csneo
up the record, and that of ITSELF he coatended eas
tained the position that it not wit Of rights.
The question then resolved itse into one Of snpss
discretion and In the consideration Of il the Csss
urs, take into view the facts Of the csse, and whether
hoee acts sufcient 10 warrant the allowance q
thi, writ He urged tn. they S. mere not And sss s tie
eui,tsl of the accused her iA Tor murder, .. q.
legged the petition showed conclusively that she ea1
tanned In much graver offence thsn this far 80
impartial trial and BY implication y coeceded 0st
she get the same AZ for the pres. he COS
sidered that Swss decidedly favorable to the Accuses,
that II she should allow herself 10 bs tired by
she Iced not fear for the resul Finally he sad tnis
writ could not be granted until attempt had oeso
made to get jury. and be here cited cssss TO sustain
his poeition.)
Mr.. Chathed, in reply, said that tho difficulty be-
tween himself and the learned counsel was THAI thsy
did not understand each other In regard 70 the lac
He reiterated that the writ q wit Of right q
| common law, and be thought he knew what be said
The gentleman in denying this bad not been diigeat
in his study Of Ergsh law. In the reign OF Cha,ies
the Second the common law Of England, In regard 70
the writ Of certorar, changed by an act VI ~
Parliament of Great Britain. At the time OF the pes
| sege of tho act il intended to make di>cre-
| tonsry wrt both as to the People and the Cro9u:
but question in regard to Il. by accident the
Grown not spoken Of in the act, and u was co..
tended that the law rule a. to the Crown wee
not changed; and 80 IL held by the kings Beuch.
thus making il di, crelionary 10 the People, but
writ Of right TO the Crown Now what next IL 10
recolected rightly the set Of Copress OF lbs, de-
carbg hat the acts Of Parliament were not the Law
Of the land was enacted 10 this State. lie quoted tbe
| etatute:
"None ofthe statutes Of Enssnd Great Britain shs b.
consider Of tn. STATE 1.t a. they b d., ascs: n =
in the year thousand hundred aud -isnty eight
Thus he disposed Of the argument of the gcatlemss
that this discretionary writ He now would ca2
the attt pOn Of the Court to the case OF The People
sgt Webb in reply TO the objection that there wes
MT sufficient ground in the petition for granting It.
| Mr.. Webb had flooded the County Of Otsego With
| copies of his paper containing an article upcn the
libel for which he wa. indicted. The prosscutsss
moved for writ in orcer 10 change the venus, ~
defendant opposed on the grou1d that there were noe
facts sufficient to srrsnt its allowance. The Judge
gaLted it, saying that Il writ Of course, and DO
need not pass upon the point raised by the desase,
but he consico that the facts alone would jush1
| him in allowing IL. Coursel urged that II the fscts
ia that justified the iSsuisg Of the writ they most
certainly did in ths This woman had not movve
into the cts Lad not opened her lips and he couie
amost cay thought, bni that every motion, word and
thought sspread by the press throughout tho Guy.
| Mr.. Chstfield having concluded. Judge Peabody -
account Of the absence Of Mr.. Whiting reserved ~
decision until Monday but later in the sfterpoos gA~~
1t. The following is the sub,tapce Of his opinioc;
T EP1aS9 sa sT' suSsss
against the prisoner The csae stated By tho counsel G ~
Sh &Som the County Of sewYors 70 some Other county a9
lese and she that they do.ire to make s
that =. cannot have fair this. TS., motion csy :z
o a nS be- cSs fss: ws G ss
MasssI sas fS Th. % s. Ds wssn % %s
@.. 1hs only question ,sI to he ss SSsSsS her, T. .Is % -
tuny make it It would seem % be almost mstsS e
Sss rsht to DIR sOd inporal II cannot g.. sas
here the prejudice her In the minds o. psg
| elsewhere. n,
The reason assigned is sufficient
The motion Is made promptly and without unressonslds
s. There claim pre.ne Of any wan, Of GOOD t,t y
Tue allowances will not necessarily prejudice the prosscs-
The motion must Therefore be granted. TIL. mo.ios A.s
usually psrte, but in thk notice ha b
given to the District Attorney By my direction
THE cRoIoS AQuEDucT BOARD AND THE NEW KxsER-s
vOIR
The People on the relation samuel Demoo end John
NJ Wood agt The Croton Aqueduct Board
This was motion for speremptory msndamus 70 con-
pei the respondents to take the bid Of DDsmofs Wtod
Il Co. 10 build the New Reservoir into oonaderasoo-
IL appears by the afidavits that their bid was informal
| and Otherwise irregular. The bid pretesds 70 b
| made by both Dinsmore and Wood. The ef3dsvfD.
which are required 10 be made and sworn to by esce
party being only sworn to by Samuel p. Dinsmores
and Immediately under 1t was written Din.more, WOOD
& Co. Abbot Brothers appeared ioy Dinsmore u
Wood in support of the motion. Mr. Busteed sp-
peaied for the Creton Aqueduct Board and Mr. Field
for J. r. and Tbos. Cumming, and fsirchid Co,
competing bidders. The following are Mr. Bustesds
F6.n The bid Of Bnsuore and Wood defective upsa
II purports TO be from samuel r Dnsmoe and John 4.
Wood and signed BY them, but it also ssned Dins~esv.
By the Revised Statutes 18th Ed, s1s Title. Misds.
mesIOr is required that where the dsssnstoa ss1
partner q partners And the sd section makes any vsses
l ot this provision msdemsanor. ..... ..... ID
presumptss evidence that bs propossl bid made o
dde ard dsentIed the bdde om favorsbae osnsAsS
Second Tho vecstou required BY Assh section Of NJ
| ordiIs IsIce Of May %. ls4s, vas Tot made n,
There 10 pofessedly lsast otAsr psrs{ tJeas II
Wood Interested in the contract and es.inatsi end
other psnon besde Wood Dnsmoe thea W. pese -
also interested in the estimate, and sAosA hsss
Neither Of the sDrtes bean Oleott sstseaes his Aes