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

Court to-day tor argument on the OH OF eScsptlocs
TIE court room wss oeasely crowded throughout the
day and the Arguments OF counsel we're more exolte4
ard foroibs than heretofore made IN tais case.
Mr.. MekeoD, for the people, said that on the Sh d
NAV ,sst this Coart made an order sending the ia
dic;meut in this case to be tired at the Circuit lie
submitted the pOseG returning the CONVICTION OF Cen
CENT and moyed for juGgnert
Mr.. Bsrkman ssked ii the p0siea was al upse
which the motion was made.
Mr.. McKeou replied, that with the indictment and
record, il WAS
Nj Ashmesd observed thai he would sabmit some
issues in te shspe Of reasons for scst OF
and , motion far ne tris The other side aad pus-
sued course which pat tne MISTER in posi.oa NOT
IN accordance with wnst had been the cerstahdx-
The counsel or the prisoner had taken cersn sxoeg,
cns before tho Judge who tried tho csJe, and the ou
OF exceptions TO embody all the testimony, an tns
notes OF the Judge show exactly where the excepaons
10 the rulings taken, and under what chcuni-
saDcee. Trey had not had an opportunity ID $50 ,se
original notes of the Judge, ard the other eide hsd
had them printed with certain additions winch ne oo
jec,ed TO. .,,s
the ma,ter with Judge Wright before coming into
The Attorney General hoped that there would be no
unnecessary delay in passing this sentence, WHICH
should have been pronounced long ago. The bM a
excepors itself would rot operse as stay Of ssa-
tence or its execution except under certain crcun-
stances. The sentence should be pronounced at thus
time fer it certainly would not be after an order Tor
pew trial if that should be granted. The Court ot
Appeals had decided 10 the csse OF Rulotf that untu
sertsrce was prcoou tn. Court psd no jurisdiction.
Judge Davies said the Court agreed to thss
Mr. Ashmesd doubted the correctness OF this DO.
cision as applied to the present csse. AL he asked
.Judes Dsyles-You may consider tha, question DIS
posed Of; you not to argue the bu oil efoepuoes
MIR Blapkman asked the Court to note his exoep-
tion. TO which Judge Davies replied ne would, Win
pleasure. ,,<.,
Mr. Ash mead then argued on the regularity OF tho
| H,s record pr0duCeot4 -
this case good authorities said everything thaL
took place in court should be rected 10 the record.
TIE postea was merely tho ndorsement OF the Judge
or the ns prus reoord but there could bo postea
without record. As there no record here there
! could be no postea and consequently there was
ncibirg for the other side to for judgment. upoa.
! Judge Davies said this same objection was taken
/ last December in this case and overfrled.
Judge Wright said there was strictly DO such thing
! as a record OF Circuit Court.
Judge Davies, after consultation, said the Court
considered the postes sufficient.
! hir. Blankman then presented the following
REASONS FOR ARREST or JUDGMENT.
That does not appear fom the posss hs, verd
whatever rendered BY the Jurors who were iupannesed ~
try ihe deitpdsnt
the defendant OF them have sndssed
any verdict upon the issues they were swon TO try
in Court when the verdict OF the Jury rendered II any ve
d Fs w % S By std S Or Of S% upon tho de-
neither the Of IN nor the PSs,s hsw: That h The
the verdict Of the Jury sworn to try him.
Mr. Blsnkman went into long argument on tho
above points, and finally commenced talking about q
certain agreement which had been made between the
couose for the prosecution the counsel for the defense
and the prisoner, not tor the purpose OF ooectng 70
thst sgreement he said but because it but right
and proper that the Court should have all the facu be-
fore them.
The Attorney General asked Mr.. Blankman which
point he was arguing.
Mr. Bapkmao said the records here should show the
facts relating to the agreement
Judge Davies asked him If he moved 70 amend tho
postea:
Mr.. Blankmsn replied that he thought this was re
proper time 10 make such q motion.
Judge Davies said that proper notice should have
been gwen 10 the other lie If be intended TO mako
any molten.
Mr.. Bl,rkman thought he could show the Court
that such a course was not necessary.
The Attorney yGerersl ssd the proceedings were r-
regular the matter referred 10 was not before tho
Court ard not included in tho reasons for arrest
OF judgment.
The Court 20 held, and after three attempts mads
Mr.. Bankman understand tnst hs must argue on his
reaeops for arrest of gmen first and sfterward be
would be at liberty to move to amend the postea.
Mr.. Blsnkmsn ssid he was through.
The Attorney General commenced speaking 10 reply
TO Mr.. BiaIkmsns argument, when no was interrupt
eo by Judge Davies, who Informed him thss It vas
unnecessary
Mr. Ashinesd supposed he had night 10 bs heard
betore the Court made any decision.
Judge Davies saia they would near him.
NJ. Ashmesd commenced, but the Attorney General
interrupted ayirg that the Court did not think
lecesssTy t0 bes- him. he hoped they would not per-
nit 9 long argument, end on such warm dsy, wnen
they had bu. The remsIder Of ths day before them.
.Iuogs Dsyies seid Mr.. Asbmsad could speak, twas
within the discretion Of the Court.
Mr.. Ashmesi said be wss happy that he D "a Deen
hitherto spare such scere ss was exhibited by tns
counsel on the other side.
Judge Dawes. irtsrrupsirg-Ths Court will not
perni, any personal illusions bs.ween cou1sei. Tnsy
must corfne themselves 10 the matter before tao
Court and avoid rersorA aluslons.
Mr. Ashnead wished 10 know i the Court decided
that he had right 70 comment on the coufee pur-
sued by the cour col for the prosecution lie oshevea
he had undoubed tight to aluds TO their coaduct.
when the whole case appeared moro Ike prvsn
prosecution than effort TO sdnini'ter justice 10
legal manner.
Judge Davies ssid-No, 10. here.
Mr.. Ashmesd then turned 10 the TeAons ior sfress
Of Judgment. He argued that The record was impsr-
feet a. showing the Jury and the prisoner were pres.
elt Only on the irst Day. IL w1 not sumcent 3s.
the record should state Csnceni was ID Cod tne nf
day of the trial; il should say ne Wa present every
dsy during is progress. The record or poses did poe
sufcieutly state the facts IL did no. show that the
jury rendered 9 verdict, bu. named certain jurors
who were sworp, and continue Gay and gave vsr-
oct" &c. VINO ssy and gave verdict II does not
ssy the Jurors aforesaid. This. wss fatal error.
TEese principles were not only sound law, ous were
consistent with reason and philosophy susa pG.s -
would no. for q moment stand the scrutisy OF ~
Crown lawyers in England; ror would any Ja'Re Ps
sentence; but the point would DO ressryed i9 ms
consideration of the twelve Jurors. II the pnsosss
ssntsn to be executed on I.As . ieeya .ca~
be ca a record which did not show taat rs vases.
v;cseS ror that he vas IN Court when the verdict
was rendered. ~,...-
N'ohael Csucsmi IN relanon TO the egreernea.
The Attorney General asked If the points hsd bssa
.3uSse Dsves-Yes, Sir.
The Attorney y-GsnsrAi-rhen object 70 s'y an0s'
~, BIsnk mar asked Tia. he might be permitted -