The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-11-10
Court OF General SEES ions.
Before Judge Russell.


Nov THE November term Of the General Sessions
was opened this morning. butt as usual on the day pre-
cedng tho election, there very little business
transacted
The first thing in order the calling Of the Grand
Jury panel by the Clerk and there not quorum
present. those gentlemen answering to their names were
dicharged till Thursday next the City Judge observing
That there Grand Jury In session at present uhoe'
the auspices Of the Supreme Court
The first case disposed of was an indictment iof
burglary in the third degree found against FRANCES
Brady who was charged with entering the premises "
Charles schegel 1893 Seventh street, on the ngn OF ne
10 an attempt TO commit the offence ana was seh'cncca
70 two years Imprisonment IN e eaaed guilty to forgery
n the fourth degree having attempted 70 pass counter
Se BILL evident from 1no " Una nn,s and tho
Caty Judge very properly suspended Judgmsnt
Margaret Headey apparently respcctole woman,
- The marty who gave her the money that she owned two
houses in Mercer street, which was not the fact She said
ha She had no intention Of defrauding and as that was
her first offence his Honor was enent sending her 10 the
aity prison for sixty days.
James Mcrann was placed on trial. charged with COM
hitting feonous assault upon John Burns, in stabbing
him with knife, the 2lst OF September at 1879 Twelfth
street. The complainant affirmed that he was struck by
some person entering his house. and supposng it was
he prisoner, defended himself This the accused Denied
the witnesses for the defence proved that Burns was
armed with club and . revolver. The jury had not
agreed at a late hour
DECISION KARp1Ks CASE
The City Judge rendered the following decision on the
Motion TO quas an indictment against Henry karpcs J,
for embezZlement-
The defendant was indicted on the sth day of Septem-
Der 1869, for the embezxlemcnt Of twenty barrels OF
four the value Of $780, the property Of John Hecker
and George Hecker, whist in their employ in the ca
pacty OF clerk aud servant, which, as alleged, no
frauduenty and fcononsly did take STEAL secrets and
convert to his own use on the 18th day Of june 1882
the 18th OF September 1852 the said defendant
was again Indicted for the enbezzlement Of twenty other
barrels Of -four the property Of the same parties on the
on the indictments, to the found the 18th Of Sep
tember last nterposed special plea 70 the jurisdiction
OF this court to which the District Attorney behalf Of
the people, REPLIED and to which the counsel for the de-
iendant demurred and 10 the one found the said Sth
of September, motion was made to quash the same,
andavs showing that the defendant in the month of
July 1852 left this city and took up his residence with
his family IN the city Of Toronto, Canada and that the
10th OF August last whilst he was residing said city OF
Toronto be apprehended aud arrested by the autho
rites there at the iustgaon and the complaint of Ro
Der, W. Bowyer, charge Of forgery alleged to have
don asked for under the tenth article of the treaty
OF 1912 between the United States and Great Britain and
that he was 70 the authorities OF the State OF
New York and was brought by said authorities to the
city Of New York. where he has been and is mpri-
eoned and that after his arrival in said city Of New York,
the two said indictments were found against him. that
he has not been called upon TO plead to any indictment
for the commission Of any alleged forgeries which his
said extradi,on asked for, and which he
rendered 10 the authorities Of the State Of New York and
tat the charge preferred against him in the city Of To-
Tonto was trumped up charge made with the express
purpose of procuring his extradton that he might be
brought within the Jurisdiction Of this Court to be tried for
the alleged embezzlement, The special plea and aida-
the same state Of facts and argued together
motion The District Attorney, in HIS reply to the said
Plea and to which the said counsel for the defence by his
demurrer to the same all the satemontherein
contained TO be true from which that the de-
PENDANT clerk Of the said Hecker Co., such
committed various acts Of forgery, embezzemen and lar
een and was arrested on said charges and placed in the
custody Of police officer, and from whose custody he
made his escape and fed 70 Toronto, Canada.
urged with great force by the coun
sci for the defence "Tbat when person
is brought within this State by criminal process raudu
lenty initiated purpose of civil process the Court
VIII discharge HIM from arrest when is made clear that
The criminal process was frandueny got up for the
State That such has been the practice Of our civil
courts there can be no doubt But in instance, how
ever has this rule been applied to criminal cases. for the
reason that the peope-the soveregn-cannot have any
sinister eovinous dishonest object Furnishing crime
The law requires its punishment in all and to say
that Grand Jury District Attorney indcs prosecutes
for felony in fraud Of the prisoners rights is TO utter
crime, having committed IT, TO go unpublished The
defendants flight to foreign country does not absole
State Of the physical to punish him. In the of
Adams the People, Comst ILL., Gardner, j. says
sf State may punish foreigner who owes it no ale
glance, for acts committed the highway OF nations
there would TO be doubt Of its jurisdiction when
the offence was committed by any means within its
territory Robbery upon land is as much opposed to the
law OF nations as robbery upon the high seas In each
the individual fofeits the protection Of govern
ment; and the difference OF jurisdiction in the
is attributable to the right of domain, and not
10 the doctrine OF allegiance. Vattel says that
The sovereign who injured by the subjects of another
nation takes satisfaction for the offence himself when he
meets with the delinquent in his own territory, in
free place. as the open And again. after remarkipg
that would be unjust to npute TO the sovereign every
fault committed by subject against citizen Of another
country, he says IL the offended State has in her
power the individual who has done the injury, she may
without scrupe, bring him to justice aud punishment
If any fraud deception has been used in order to bring
the defendant within the jurisdiction Of this court, that is
a matter to be settled between the United States and
Great Britain This court cannot look at regard that
question. 1t is sufficient that the defendant is found
within its jurisdiction after having escaped from the
officer the general charge preferred against him by the
Hessrs Hecker & Co-because it is clearly settled by all
the books that officer making fresh pursuit after
prisoner who has been arrested and has escaped through
his negligence, may reake him, whether he find him in
the same or different country; because as the liberty
obtained by the prisoner is wholly owing to his own
wrong there no reason why he should be allowed
derive any advantage from it, q Gritty, G. L., p. 80;
reason OF the above rule says Lord HALE is that the
law adudgeh the prisoner always the officers custody
rendered in favor Of the people on the demurrer TO the
rephcation and the motion to quash must be denied with
liberty to the defendant to plead de to the indictment
Nov. e-The first the calendar today was joint
charge Of burglary in the first degree and grand larceny
preferred against young named Edward McGoyern,
who was indicted with an accomplice, who demanded
separate trial. The complainant John McDonough, resd
ING at Fourth avenue testified that on the night Of the
18th Of October his preses were burgarousy entered
and small iron safe, containing S151 in money together
with valuable papers, was carried away by the thief
Ocer NctherSon While patrong his Deaf discovered TWO
young at very early hour in the morning, coming
from the house OF Mr. McDonough, Of whom carried
something under his arm; no pursued Them whereupon
Abe burden thrown down by its bearer who was finally
captured by the officer McGovern, the prisoner, was in
company with this young man. and he also arrested
by an ocer who came to the assistance Of Mr. McPher
son Inc evidence was clear and conclusive and accord
ngy the jury convicted him of burglary the third de-
gree Judge Russell him to the pententary for two
years and six months
James Bennett indicted for grand larceny stealing
quantity OF spoons forks and other property worth $780,
from Henry Sheppard, pleaded guilty TO attempt to
commit that offence, and sent to the penentary for
six months.
James and Thomas Newport pleaded guilty TO petit lar
ceny having stolen small quantity Of fancy goods from
Saturday for sentence.
James Howard indicted for forgery in the second de-
gree having uttered and passed the 10th of October
35 bank BILL purportng to be Of the Mechanics bank of
the State Of Connecticut with intent TO defraud Louis
Brode pleaded guilty TO the third grade Of that offence
He was sent back till next Saturday.