New-York daily tribune., 1858-02-16
THR CASE OF EDWARD SMITH.

To he Editor Of The ~ y. Tribune
SIR: The article published in your issue Of to-day
relative to the action of his Honor Judge Russell upon
the certorari in the of Edward Smith, contains
several statements which untrue, does not contain
several material fac,s which would have given to the
account different color, and inhcts upon the Judge
censure which is wholly undeseryed. AUDI ateram
partem.
II is untrue that about six months ago poor woman
pamed Cries p|eaded guy 10 a,ecknicai misdemednor
IN ordey 10 20 10 BldckrcHs IdoRd for sic months.
| send YOU with this communication transcript, duly
certified by the Clerk of the Court of Special Sessions,
X. II. Johnston, esq, by which il appears that the
woman was convicted upon the I'd day of June last,
before Justices Osborn and Wood Of the crime of
pttH larceny goods &C.. OF Henry l.. Piapet, well.
known merchant, upon the oath of credible witness,
and sentenced to ak months imprisonment the longest
possible term. The complainant against Smith is,
therefore, a convicted and branded thief.
Ii is not true that before going to the Peultenslary
the woman arranged with Mrs. Foster, the Matron Of
the City Prison to taxa charge of her furniture and
household effects until she came back. | send you
with this commune alton the original wTeR authority
grc to Smith 10 take charge of the property, for the
consideration of 81 per month, attested by Judge
Osborn. This amount with his expenses, Smith
claimed when the woman returned.
1t is true that Mr.. Beals, the agent of the Prison
Association procured the arrest of Smith after having
offered $40 TO return the property; that an examina.
ton had; that Justice Welsh held that grand
larceny had been committed; and that certlorarl
sued ont.
1t is untrue that Smith ever sold any of the pro.
perty. Andrew Baker of No. 100 Centre street tes-
titles that the man who lived with the woman moved
away part of the furniture; and that is what not
found in Smiths case.
The writer of this communication sued out the writ,
and he respectfully and earnestly represents that the
case was emnently proper one for session.
The entire testimony was submitted to both the Re-
corder and the Acting District Attorney by Judge
Russell 6rtvc he drcfdrd H. The Recorder gave the
same opinions subsequently pronounced by Judge
Russell and ,ohn Sedgwck, esq, the Acting District
" am Of opinion that the facts do not mske grand
"larceny." send you, Mr. Editor, the original pa
pers and Endorsement. Judge Russell, agreeing after
a careful examination with these other high public
officers discharged Smith and in his written indorse-
ment held that no legal ofense had been committed,
and that even if the wOmans statement as to her loss
Of property, which she alleged Smith had taken
chage of 70 take to Mrs. Foster true, was but
private fraud.
One word more end have done. The gentleman
who contributed 10 your paper tie article III question:
whom have no doubt was deceived IN the premises
speaks of "privste frauds as matters new, novel.
For his information permit me 10 quote ttle la"'
Fravds Or cheats either pl bic or private. ,,
aw PIRATE ,apds cheats were not indctsDe
the only remedy was by action. u Johns H., SDl)
Public frauds cheats ndicabc at common a~ because
thy related the public large such as tue use OF 'e wreh
ana measured the selling goods with cOunereie Marks paying
with ia dice frauds affecting the OF usce and I'm
medsiey Djung the interest OF the public q John H. ol
'''' Re.jectfI y, {. ). SPENCER. Attorney. &C..
No. 81 Broadway.