New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-12

According to the original old fashioned method Of
trying capital cases-and for that matter all cases
likely to be strongly contested, and in which i'm
portsnt questions of law might arise-the trial took
place before full court which heard argument
upon each point rs it arose and decided at once, on
the spot and defntively, all the questions of law in
the case. In this way when case was once tried
it was done with and ended.
Under pretense of saving the time Of Judges and
facilitating the dispatch of business, the fashion
has been introduced Of trying all cases, and at
length even capital ca,es, before single Judge
sitting az q special commissioner, every one Of
whose multtudinous rulings in the course of trial
is open to exception and to review by some full
bench, and often in this State of New-York 10 q
succession of appeals. This method of procedure,
introduced for the sake Of saving time, has become
in its results q most enormous consumer OF the
time Of the courts. Not only has it greatly multi
piled the points of law raised on every trial, but In
the granting Of new trials, which forms part Of
the system, it has afforded the means Of giving
to the culprit reiterated chances Of escape. The
first object Of criminal lawyers now is to entrap or
entce court into some false ruling, or some pro-
cedure contrary to law in order that if the verdict
be against bis client he may have the chance Of
new trial before perhaps more favorable Jury.
Of this striking instance was afforded in the
last jury trial Of the iDtermiDabe Csncemi case. 1t
came out in the course Of ths. trial. ss our readers
will recollect that one of the jurors was not only
particular friend Of one Of the prisoners counsel,
but that he had been placed BY that counsel in
position which qualified him great deal better for
taking part in the trial witness than for serving
in it as juryman. When these facts came out in
the courre Of the trial, and when the public and the
journals began TO express good deal OF curiosity
as to the means and object by which and for which
this particular juror got upon the panel, the Prs-
orers council step forward with the most innocent
air and propose to relieve the case of all the embar
easements arising from this disclosure, BY with
drawn the juror and allowing the trial TO go on
aud the case TO be decided BY the verdict of the
naming eleven. This was very safe proposition
for the prisoner-much safer for him than expedi-
ent for the publc-and we are little surprised
that the prosecuting officer and the Court should
have 90 readily seceded to it. The prisoner had the
chance of an acquttal By the eleven jurors, or,
shOud the trial resut in q verdict of conviction, o.
it did, be could then turn reund, as be now does,
ard claim new trial on the ground that the one be
had just had was no trial st all, for want Of full
ury.
That in point of law this is . fatal objection
there can be, We think, no doubt and it appears
TO u, apart from I'll other criticisms on the proce-
dure, that both the prosecuting officer and the
judge before whom the trial was had, fell into very
grave mistake in eoosentDg to go on and waste their
tine, or rather the time Of the public, in . proce-
dure which from tho moment the twelfth juror
wa withdraw. suDk from the dignity Of capital
trial to the boy q play Of . mere mooscourt. Trial