Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1859-04-01
THE sECKLEs' CASE.

Early IN the session OF the Criminal Court
yesterday the counsel retained by Dan'i L. Sick
lies, charged with the murder of Philip b. Key,
came into court and requested permission to iu-
quire through the Court from the District At
torney vixen the Grand Jury would be ready
10 send down the bill of indictment against their
client, in order that arrangements for setting a
day for the trial might be made A presentment
bad been made several days ago, and they were
desiIous TO know when it would Be followed up
by an ndicimcn,.
The Judge reFlied to counsel consisting of
Messrs. Stanton, Chiffon & Magruder and
Rltcllfte, accompanied with Mr.. Sickies. Sr..
father of Dau'l Il. Sickles) that it was not ia
his power TO answer the question, as the subject
had not jet come within the cognzauce of the
Court, aud laid altogether in tue discretion of
the District Attorney, who was the ONLY proper
Judge OF the time when 10 send up in lictments,
anu that therefore any motion on The subject
at this l'hie could so be entat taiued fhe Court
very rarely interfcred with the District Attor-
ney in these matters.
The District Attorney was unablc 10 Sc. the
proprety of the gentlemen's motion. He h ID
already privately apprised the counsel for Mr..
SiekleS On the subject, but could net certainly
inform them when al Indictment would be
found.
About noon the Grand jlFy came into court,
and, amongst several other indictments, han led
in one against ID. f. Sicklss for murder At
two clock Messrs. Stanton and Clinton re-
turned into court aud again addressed Judge
Crawford, saying that they understood an in
dictment had been found against their client,
and, Us his consel claimed the constitutional
right OF speedy trial Ii the District Al.
torney was not ready 10 try the case, it was his
duty to give his reasons why, so as to enable
the Court to judge of the sufficiency Of those
reasons. Mr.. Stanton concluded by proposing
Monday next for the opening of the case.
Mr.. District Attorney Ould thought the
gentleman little hasty in coming into court
within an hour or two after The finding os an
indictment and insisting on the appointment of
day for trial. 1t was the practice of this
| court TO leave that matter to the District At
sorney, who, as sworn officer, was presumed
to act 10 view of his official responsibility. In
reply to Mr.. Staniou's proposal of Monday
next, whereon to commence the trial, he could
merely sly that he would not then be ready,
| aud would not, unless compelled by the Court,
give his reasons why. Whilst he fully ac-
knowledged tho right of the party to speedy
trial, be did not admit that under that right if
an indictment were found against party on
Thursday, the prosecuting officer is compelled
TO begin he trial on tho following Friday, or
the next Monday. He had no desire to de-
prive Mr. -Sickles of any of his rights or to keep
hlm in Jail, but the earliest day he could fix for
the trial would be Monday week, the 4,h Of
April He had no such ohjec, as to keep Mr..
Sickles in Jail, but to see that The ends of JUS
tice served.
Judge Crawford reaffirmed his statements Of
the morning as TO the latitude of discretion ac-
corded by the practice of the Court to the
District Attorney in determining the proper
time for trials, and had only, within his reuol.
lection, departed from it in single instance,
aud that was in grontiug the Continuance of a
case 10 the next term.
The trial of Mr.. Sickles is therefore set for
next Monday week.
We understand that the delay which appears
to have arisen in finding bill in this case grew
out of the circumstance that the Grand jury
had not, until Wednesday last, ceased the ex.
animation of witnesses 10 reference to the con-
nexlon OF another party than Mr. Sickles With
the offence.- National ipteiLigencer.