New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-08
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF GENERAL sEssiONs-JuLr 7.-sstore Re-
ccrieF BARssRb.
TIE INDICTMENT AGAIN ST JUDGE USSELI.,
b. ULLaAN AND OTaERS
DECISION on THE MOTION TO oUAsB.

At be lsst June term Ot tbs CUut three indlct-
suts seans the defendants mater
and battery aud for p snd assault aOd battery
oon made TO ash these Indictment. the 's't day Of
rscrs that before ih, Grad Jury futd the init
alone be cous1.Ted ThOs pspers the sdsy
oi H. j. Brent John Wisms sn3 Jbs psee lsier oi oeo
Nhes. yiuE nmorcs'ion containing oe hArn- 81
s1n sf 1 49,. r 1s' rs 40 .1tbsr a.d All
A lS pinned piece of pager containing the ohowins
prons ant ss, granted upon the letter Of
rsint On oath hs been ae undersgnsd City Juigs
ofbe City York by Bernsrd z Ulman, tina; John
business aud that be sgSn evening
h Of April and bss sonsble grounds to sopfeoend dst1rb
This The Gsnd Jury vh is Accompanying communi
cation envelope directed In toe handwriting Of George
op re BY the Foreman Ct Grand
pspSi. il THE case to morrow (wcdDescsyl morniOs"
con,enOeo that certain pspers which were before the
sssr John Dscs should s.o be .Ien nto Consideration
beire be June OrsLd Jary ob sed lay
able portion ot defendants
be ooD.dered and can therefore have no bearing
Of motion. The three dsyits befe melti 'ned tsvns
been before TIE GnLd Jmy present ss o cis which Gnk
pned show segsyse s,suit AID battery The remssas
counsel nsists was unawfo aud ssoids toe In
cctfnts do seTs which PLAIN justify
that bot isher on the contrary coIan some matter:
which rather favorable TO the sccJed II otherwise and
conecuy; which they have b.sed
me- Ss % bsTs s s ~. w & o
no eh uon be Grand Ju,y seooncy pesunp
ina these iudictrnen The
AP and Apr %, AID tie exisc. from the warrant which
OFFICE OF PoRrrR's SPIRIT OF rHE Tixrs}
kEw-YORK, 4 1il l5 1853.
dslenI a,ion 70 excude MI John Dsce musical
the Aeseemy be purchased hi. ticket
reached ne and have carefully read what you say IN Jsthc
T. & bG .egs M, P'IGs to ao t1s H.dsmy a e. md
the
iopg .. he sts himself lawfully and decosog.y while
,Ss tsl p 1 personal are merged In '
Were editors submit 10 any other rule make managers
The umpire cf the private saneng oftheir employees they would
be continually subject TO Theatrical dcston and might al
D1., c Se6n OF eoo T6. wa. the es 1b t1' n. I'm n
your arbitrary and nvioous exclusion CT mr Dsrcie;
IN ~ 5 20 s , T yedfe3 70 2 him 70 he TcIS5 .nd dd
not deem Il worth the while scluaut with the rp.
II or the wIons and inds1y we seek redfe and we e1Pc.
nothing in the charges you make sgsiust Mr. Dsrce that
'y rot be esy a%Sy and i NJ stt.' r., e whether
since Id him to be better writer thsn The who has
MfeOve I1 my b.ersou d M Dco has been en-
tey in t' fayeT have aws,s found hin to be gGe well
you sy his character have set to hear the st speak
admit however th.: evidence be fur
1 I s' coB NE 1 due ita to sS SGsR Th e in Of T g S or
tsnment he AZ oil coonec u
The Spirit More than this have not to keep that desire
you, that not sctuaed the steps sm taking by
soy luminosity to but simply by desire TO vndicae
tue tights of the paper condUct and to essb'h the principle
editors have the privilege Of sdmson, for to H.
cebsed places public all other members the
Editor Porter's Spirit Of the Times
OFFICE or PoRrrE's SPIRIT,
New-York April g. 1855; s
Mn. BERNARD ULtMAxs is intention % ~: H. the
asdy CT Mqse % g& o5a o9esy p ~ S e in ordo nat he
may S S 9' s %H p.p sns We S Be pro-
d win tickets which vii S purchase % of your .oa; 70 il % aS
,tr spirit Waiting ,heser' and other places of public en-
Tie sertn an will accompany will be Mr. John Bar
cie who aware has for long period acted the n guar
notice in order sicr what has happened hit no person
'"' Yo1rs. &C., GEORGE WILKES,
Editor Porter Spirit Of the Tinss.
Whtas Complaint oath has been nsce b. fore the nrde
signed City Judge Of the City of New York By Bcnst w
that John Dsre has been in the hb OF snroyne him
within his P.ce Of business and hai he threatens 70 DO 50 again
oupds to spphend disturbance difficulty aud riot in
teuupt his business, &c" 49,
Mes.rs Wilkes sud Dsc. defiance OF MI Ulmans desire
surepou.y obtained tickets Of sdnson with the intent OF
enforcing the right admission By committing bTesh OF ths
peace and that they made such preliminary arrange
ens tending to the production of not TsPeense would would
The presumption to be drawn from these letters contained IN
dment. vsate found sose out Of dispute as to whether
IusDsee o the Academy Of Music has night to exclude with
out Just cause Of his caprice whomsosye he may
please whether by notifying person that he viii not b. .d
me sucI SUI PesGn M % ,mi..6Pp Seqeop Upon th @
e.umpon the counsel has fisned argument which VIII
is also coItepded hat further presumption arises from the
above of warrant that the roa ad assault. and
batteries complained of Of the endesyor TO Propeiytx
ecue good AID sufficient warrant duly i'.ned Now . az
te.e pre,unpons might ,hs the papers from which they
are dawn together with the adsvs before the Grand
Jury sppNs by heiI minutes orally examined VIZ
whose testimony o before me aud would Therefore
b. question the suciency aud efsct OF the whole eVi
upon which the Gaud Jury has sesdy passed and the
% 10 s aSa To do do m Would be in eject try eysy
cIius case upon motion qussh Concedng for the puf
~ of ara upon motion The evidence belOie
The GIsnd Jury be looked into sud i,s sucency passed
upp s whole Of that evidence must appear before the
Stances as as cvi cooi. would sfs1t 6oesut
But VIII eusor aIee .. the @ o % Sy 'o
the letters in question that MsssIs Wilkes and DaT:o
,r ether to ccste not o. cem@it breach he p,ce
npy lay the foundation for the assertion Of the nights they
to sy that shove extract Of warrant forms the basis OF the
comp this mattel for nowhere appear: thss such waI
dscarsed ihs, at the tu9s Of the assaults aud no!
complain I'd Of in toe bands Of any officer that such ohoe va:
the n'sve Of ,I'. sp's % .sU,e h i
the rd Jrry found Indictments for matters arising out Of
proper execution OF warrant uoess such fact appeared cesy
a positively upon Of the Whole ev5enoe before them
Tie eInarnS psumptou drawn BY defendants oo.q'el'
hat the Of the assertion on the part OF Mes's
to be admitted 10 tie AcsdSmy Of Mus despite the will and
dse Ct the msneser OF essee As 20 whether tney na
such reht peihsTs rot msteiis rqniry-oT they
cortsty liberty in any seo; Of the case to por'
shs,e t.ae;' 10 60 = we ~ - 70 Law the fo1nSon for
legal edus and he committed DO o'esh OF ,ne ess'
Mo- 70 in & ceyycesop hat Ses is n thing thu. would justly
assuming holding that there Was any breach OF the
The defendant counsel ho.sys np'p th.r %
CON grave in suPyosns that be bad al a6soa.e
rbt visit ths Acaeemy of Muc without the consent and
aSsins the win Of toe MANAGER they Jay dows hsyus
BEEN repes.edy oen ,oeny assin and again decided h'
sdmission heaer not nstteI OF fsst no citizen eau
claim p1Opre admits when he chooses and he may
refu. admission eniIert and respectable citiz
If this would b. nsuIay suPPosed that toe eminent
counsel would have able to cite one f such .dud
css. deciding the point question but tb he hs, not Done