New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-03-12

.nrely know what the subject OF sale 10, and whs' II "
p.ual and commonly designated. 49,. 70 he
The act in question therefore seems " i
definite and cera ain enough =, ~. s;nole
AZ 20 the fourth ground shall hold tuae ~ nm
oct Of selling subjects the vendor 70 f az correct
der the act amended, deemng that w nrnner con.
IN the foregoing ruling-) 10 be clearly VIZ therein
sfuction 20 he nut on the provisions c0h'aino iisge
A. 10 the fifth ground, IL "a not necysSe az oGcvis
anything about the lcttery WIN +, The People
connected, or upon when a,S cited by counsel for
[Snasyt ooe noint raised was, that tne 10
sonnts in 2be Indictment were bad Tor wan he o.
Sun1s ~ 10, and particular DESCRIPTION OF Tue VI
- eee- .daa N be proved the indictment was
s"Tl - the nth section OF the LDttefy Acs,
= Rey STAT 6S5. Bronson, Chef Justice, innni fs
,;. ssvs, at is q general, though not universal
i. ,h.t in indictments for ofienses created ny
q .tst2te particularly mlsdemeanors, IT - suihc"ht
70 charge or describe the Oense IN the words OF the
% ststute" and cites numerous authorities TO TINS
mint. The weight Of the authority referred 20 and
red by the lear ed Judge ia that IN an indictment
for selling lottery tickets it Is not necessary 10 give
any description whatever either OF the ticket OF '"e
lottery. -,-.
The learned Judge, however, IN pronouncng upon
The general rules Of pleading page 9o Wes OF OPINION
that there should be such certainty OF description az
would identity the ofense so taet me parry gnt tbe S
the defendant might know what crl ne he was caeo
On 70 answer that the Jury might be able 70 deliver
IN iutellyibIe verdict aDd the Court 70 naeI
pYoper Judgment and finally, that the defendant might
be able TO plead his conviction ecquttal IN oar OF
another prosecution for the same ofense; but thst
such rule should not be carried 80 far as TO furnish
sheld from punishment where 1t was PLAIN thas an
oHense had been committed. These views led the
Court 20 decide that all the counts but the sec0Ee IN
that indictment were insufficient.
These views are undoubtedly correct aud should
always in considering the suihciency OF an indictment
be borne 10 mind and taken in consideration with the
principle that in indictments created by statute IT -
generally sufficient TO charge the oense in the words
Of the statute.
The indictment in this is not only drawn IN the
precise language of the statute but it charges that
the defendant on specific day, at the city OF New
York, sold 10 an individual named, piece OF paper
with certain specific letters and figures IT, and that
such piece Of paper commonly known as, and
called, lottery policy. This constitutes the sub
stance Of the oense, and it cannot think, be rea-
sonsby doubted bat that it is perfectly intelgbe,
and gives the accurate and precise inforna
ton Of the charge against him; that the defendant
would be able TO plead his conviction or acqutta IN
bar Of another prosecution for the same cffense'
Tested therefore, by the principles of the above case
Of the People agt. Taylor the indictment in question
b amply sufficient
Payne, DEMO 49, and the Of the People against
Taylor 3 DEMO 80.
fhe case Of the People agt. Payne was decided in
reference to indictment drawn under the 2|th sec
tion Of the statute against rafting and lotteries, H.
s. Cts, which provides that no person unauthorized
by special laws for that purpose, shall open, &c,
publicly privately, any lottery, &c, for tie purpose
of eIDostng setiRg TO SALE dtsp0Stg Of any house.
lands tenenents real estate or any money! goods or
things IN action. None of the counts IN that indict-
ept set forth what purpose the lottery which
The tickets with the sale whereof the defendant
charged, was drawn. The indictment therefore did
not charge any ofense created by the statute, ana
the motion to quash consequently properly
granted The principle of that case is not applicable
70 tins.
The points raised in The People agt Taylor
that the indictment was bad, because
First 1t did not set out the tenor OF the ticket.
Second: 1t did not state to whom the tickets were
ssld.
In the case in question the ticket s set out and the
name Of the person TO whom it was sold s given
Consequently anything contained IN the opinion OF the
Judge given in this cannot be authoritative on
Any Of the points Of the case in hand.
As TO the sixth ground, the objection therein raised
embraced in and covered by the decision heretofore
given on the other points.
His Honor the City Judge has also examined the
various propositions rased by defendants counsel,
and concurs in the conclusions 10 which have al
rived.
The motion to quash the indictment must, there
FORE be overruled and the defendant stand his trial
Ger the offense charged in the indictment.
GEORGE G. BARNARD, Recorder.
COURT oFGENERAL SESSIONS ARcHll.-Beiore Judge
RUSSELL.
The trial of Michael Barrett for shooting John
Shelly the Of Thirteenth and
Avenue in quS5 saloon aeR BY Barrett was continued ye;
including Capt HART and several officers Of the Seven
Precinct They concsyey proved that the deceased
tbey the habit Of saloons and restaurants calling
@ d1nl. and provisions Ie2;as to Py for them and e99cad
renee destruction Of property The Jary only
Sehbersn five Isinutes when they returned into Court with
verdict Of Not Guilty.
UNITED STATES MARsHALs oFFICE-M,Rcn II.
A MURDER CASE.
Beverley Tucker, esq, American Consul at Liver
pool, sent home by the ship kalamazoo man named
james Burns Of the ship America, charged with the
murder Of seaman named Charles Peters. The prs-
sner arrived to-day and was taken in custody by the
United States Marshals officers lie was locked up
for examination.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-March before
Judge HALL.
ANOTHER BATCH OF INDICTMENTS.
This morning the Grand Jury came into Court and
presented bills Of Indictment against the following
Ferdinand Croker, for manslaughter.
Ferdinand Croker, for cruel and unusual punish
VIM johnson alias VIM. a. Williams, for passing
esentsret coin. Two indictments
Reuben III. BassoTd, for making counterfeit com.
Hel Bassford, for counterfetng.
Thomas Woods, John Woods, John Powers Stephen
Writer James Smith and VIM Mcintosh collectively for
Welt They also indicted sepatey io the ohense
Timothy Desmond, for resisting officers OF the Gus
tomL
Henry p. Arthur, for revolt
CASE or SMUGGLING.
The United States agt. John Mikes.-The defendant
indicted for smuggling various lace goods mantss shavs
&c jury mP@neled to try him. but he agreed to plead
guilty 70 the charge BY consent verdict OF guilty was rendered
against him. Sentence deferred.
The Muscan Hair Company The American Hair Company
On the hearing of the proofs in this cause yester.
day the defendants counsel moved for suit the ground
d failure Of proofs Of title in the plaintiffs The Court ordered
Den directed the proofs 20 be opened for the plaintiffs
Den Of thirty dollars costs TO defendants counsel The final
argument TO be heard the 18th Of March inst Hoffman aud
feIson for plaintiffs Francis g. Young for defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-Masch ll-Before
x,r,,. - Judge HALL.
Whham Mykes was erraigned indictment for
wit his tho