The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-10-22


Juseics Lamb, Discharging Mr. Warren
Leland IN tho First Complaint.
sProiN. REroRr roR THE HuALD.
CoGmDm, Oct n, 1850.
Twas not able 70 nd you with the account Of tho dis
charge Of Mr. Leland from custody, tho opinion Of the
learned Justice Lamb In dsmssins the complaint That
erude production should not DO lost TO postsry,
have reproduced It as nearly ,etatim Rsraim as con-
sis,ent with circumstances.
JUSTICE LAMBS LUyrD OPINION.
Of the State Of Connsctcut aaas warren Leland Of
the Stats and city OF New York, having been charged
IN tho complaint Of the State of Conrsctcut for divers
causes alleged In the complaint. Perhaps u tho nrst
place there certain questions which would COMO up
here OF public sentiment aware Of It. In order
70 Judge myself with impartial bias the Court has avoided
open.
The all this complaint is ono Of large amountof
crime committed by Mr. warron Leland, formerly Of the
city Of New York, done In the Of Colchester. has
created great excitement throughout this vicinity and,
with the able counsel both sides has undoubtedly ex
tended q great measure.
In the first account in the complaint he is charged with
intending III up complete certain blanks and unfA
Bhed notes and bills In order 70 alter the same.
C0unsel-In order TO uttsr think it IL, sir
The Court-Yes II may DO utter havn't got my specs
on and didn't look close. Yes-'ts ucr-n order 70
utter e with the intention Of defrauding said Col
chester Bank, and with the intent to defud divers per
70 whom he should pass the Same.
IN regard 70 that count tho Court has not been able 10
see evidence that Mr. Leland has violated any record
In regard his ing up these bills would seem that
some Of these bills might have been produced here and
some evidence would have been produced on the ground
Although there Ia charges brought Of similar nature
py Jones 10 his testimony which might go 70 show the
be question how far to consider his testimony valuable
In a transaction Of that kind.
TO the first account. He charged with having kept In
his custody and possession whatever blank bills for the
tude Of bank bills, made TO be issued by tbs
Colchester Dank. Now has Mr.. Leland from tho
evidence before this Court kept any Of these bills Has
any body testified this SIM Or has he exposed any Of
them for sac Has he entered the Colchester Bank
and taken from The bank any of these bills BY any ev
adduced before this Court The Court has not boon
able TO learn It, And TO fill up such blank bill in order
TO alter and the with the intent deraud the
said Colchester Bank believe there has been no tes
mony here 10 show that Mr. Leland passed any OF
these bills that has been Identified before this Court
wherefore the Court cannot end any guilt the part Of
Leland 10 this first and second In the count
he charged with five thousand pieces paper made
the form and smude OF blank bills for the payment Of
money made TO be issued by, and the property of the
Colchester Bank-a body ana corporation Now in
gard 70 either OF these FIVE thousand pieces of bills has
there been evidence offered Of any bills produced
fore the Court The Court has been able TO ascertain
that fact from any evidence.
Counsel for prosecution, nterrupting-Do understand
the Court that 1t Is necessary to bring the papersS
Counsel for detenceYcs II Ia necessary TO bring the
papers.
horse II is necessary to bring the horse in Court
Counsel for defence-He must bring evidence OF the
theft.
sci in the midst Of the delivery Of the opinion stood for
moment dumfounded, and meekly awaited the termna-
ton OF tho dispute His Honor then proceeded olows
Mr. Leland is charged in the second count with partcu
lar descrptonwhich pieces OF paper to tho said Grand
Juror unknown to the aggregate value Of Ave hundred dol
lars The Court has not been OF such bills
duced before the Court And that the said Warren Leland
did thus eloniously steal take away the bank blshas
there any evidence cored that Leland ever entered
Colchester.
bank There would bs soma Sigh, ovids.es IN ..e .o.s
here criminste Mr. Leland Of entering and stealing
any bank bills from the Colchester Bank.
On the fourth count he is charged with Divers and other
persons whose to the said Grand Juror being
evi! disposed and dishonest Persons, Of wckedly con-
irving and feonousy and frauduenty consprpg to in
jure and impoverish this Colchester Bank In regard "
that count there has been slight evidence regard
sustaining that count In tho frst place with regard
taking amount of paper notes. &c. which probably be-
onged the Colchester Bank but did he enter the bank
take them Jones' the cashier Of the bank who had
the control and power Of the bank in his hands dated
the notes. either entered the bank aud took these papers
and bundles belonging to the bank, and left them with
Leland in city and State out OF this jurisdiction New
York could Leland be liable for receiving the bss If
done here, should think they would BIO similarly alike
liable. II Jones is
Counsel for prosecution (interruptng)-They have
sworn they were taken in Colchester.
Counsel for defence-They have sworn to no such
the Court-Jones swcre that he took the notes Of the
Counsel tor prosecuton-And that delivered thcn to
The Court have the minutes that Jones delivered
them TO Leland in the city Of Hartford.
Counsel for prOsecut0n-Frst batch In Hartford and
the second batch in Colchester.
Counsel for defence-Has this any relation to the de-
Counsel for prosecution-That the testimony, and who
says that not says falsely Jones sad he took them
Counsel for Defenoe-I say he didn't testify to that
The Court-I believe must have my placeI would be
glad TO- feel THAI entitled 10 t. With regard to
these bills, II Jones took them from the bank and left
them in the hands Of Leland he certainly did get Leland
To frauduenty receive these bills. Mr. Leland might
have paid Mr.. Jones for the bills
Counsel for prosecution-He received dollar.
Counsel for defence--He swore.
The Court-Thea on tho other testimony, with regard
to letters there appears TO DO various letters
written by Leland Of this State in the city Of New
York and they purport to be in the nature Of obtaining
evidence here of the Of these letters that Le
land received compensation out OF the bank for them
BY the force and continuance OF the letters 50, was
amount Of money to New York and elsewhere and de-
cred to Leland and other persons to the Grand
Juror unknown; If Jones has acted that principle
his trust the question s s Leland RESPONSE
BILE his olys The Court has been unable to that
point il ID said also Leland received these bills with
out compensation well, Jones also testified IT, With
regard To Jones' testimony Every person In this COM
mnity must be aware that in the common view Of things
that might long ago have made this known but why
should Jones have made this known at late period, II
Leland had entered and received these bills Jones was
make this known the receivers that they should
have with Leland II Jones' testimony
be valid could be, in this point Of view, am
aware that in controversies Oh every knd, Whero there
have been hard feelings appears by Jones' testimony
certainly lessen tho weight Of Jones' testimony
and If 80 would there be sufficient evidence and testi
mony this complaint to warrant tho binding Of
Mr. LELAND to higher court, having jurisdiction Of the
The Court has been unable TO ferrt out from
evidence that has adduced before Court 1t is
sad the part of JONES' that Leland there take
certain amount Of bills and notes that left there,
making demand Of them on order that he received
from st. Louis or some other person Now, IL he had
order the banR for certain coateras il would
not crimnaty. The Court cannot identify who left
them there that they there that Leland left them
he has not directed. Therefore, If Leland got
order TO receive them, It 10 not before the Court
whether tho bank had any right to deliver them
not, but II seems they did not deliver them
consequently Leland without them. The conclusion,
think, related to large amount OF blls$5 00odek-
vered TO Leland How did Leland receive these blls2 II
Jones these bills from the bank Colchester and do
livered hem TO him. would Leland had right to
receive them They probably pure bills 1t Is not
decided that they were bogus bills; If they were they
merely swap bogus for bogus The complaint against Mr.
Leland therefore, dismissed, and his rccognizancos
therefore discharged from their liability.