The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-09

zeal with what he understood 10 be his Hooo,,s r,,ip,
N other cases He refe.red particularly 70 the c,,e
fully srsues aSa xhsss tss where the pon.
sr 70 the facts in this case. That case happened II
women wlo had rented il from the dscs"doa ~ w s
A party me to this house, at night and distnrn
THESE womp One OF them slipped out aud went to ~
waids h. anne down with gun, and oue person ~ A.
shot and .o'ber wounded. The two women Garcia "a
Raymond, examined before the Coroner and confined
as witness and sen; before the Grand Jury The nro
scouting orney. finding that these two women ware ia
favor OF the defendant their were not placed on
The Sdc Mt and on the trial Of Edwards his Honor was
nea 70 2, mRel tne prosecutor 70 produce these two
women lis Honor did compel their production exoress
Ing hs opn on as 70 the obligation Of the prosecutor TO
eau on re stand every person who knew about
the transaction SO as TO give the defence an
o. cross-examining. In Herbert's case similar apoca
lion was made but His Honor drew proper dlstlpct,o
between and the Edwards case; for in Herberts
ne witness which the prosecution asked to profuos
had not been examined before the Coroner hut had
examined as witness for the defence on babeas
hs Honor was therefore right in not competing III It
The 70 ve as Inere was no analogy between
were examined before the Coroner and M walker and
r. moodridge we're examined before the Grand Jury
Ie counsel would ask the Darict Attorney whe,ae that
was "-'' 'AAs
The District Attorney did not know whether il was or
Mr. Carlisle suggested that witnesses sometimes o bc
iore the Grand Jury and are sometimes sent
MI Iatcle asked the Clerk of the Court 10 anime tho
records to that fact N there is snv ssrn, o, o
NO would have one Of the Grand Jury By the au
o. tnis court they were not volunteers before the
uiano Jury, Out were subpnnaed attend and They
oio attend and testify. AS u the case OF Mr. Butter.
WORTH II was an extraordinary one, and the counsel
haa never seen an instance Of the kind in ali
| his practice. 1t proved on this trial that that
gentleman saw the whole TRANSACTION and uas witness
before the Coroner and yet he has been by
the Court He asked the Court TO compel che Distrc.
Attorney to place Mr. Buiterworth Mr.. Walker and Mr.
Woodbridge on the stand.
The District Attorney opposed the motion to compel
MN 70 produce these three witnesses He commended that
was not the duty Of the District Attorney 70 nose about
txrh t,are a..
examined before them. Besides, those whose names
appear on the presentmept aud tho names
Oh these three witnesses, did not appear. He
pad placed on the back Of the only me names
that appeared the back The and In that
ne a' nu oe lie mad good reasons why he did not
mon buter woftn before the Grand Jury and
sons he intended 10 keep within his own breast now nd
hereafter lie imagined however, that these reasons
we're very well known to the gentlemen the defence
Mr. ka'ciiiie would mention additional fact that
from the entry in the jail book appeared that Mr..
Scses was committed prison the testimony of Mr.
Butter worth among others.
The District Attorney asked whether the mere examiua
ton OF witness before the Coroner made him in point of
fact, witness of The United States for unless that could
DC sno"n this application could not stand de commended
that su9h was not So 10 be made witness Of the United
States, he muHt have been examined by prosecution
Suppose the Grand Jury hsd Indicted Me- Butterworth
would be said that because he examined be ore the
seltS
Mr. Magruder desired to inform the District Attorney
that he held ia his hand affidavit made by the
Grand jury since the argument commenced fact
that Mr.. Walker ami Mr. Woodbridge examined be-
fore the Grand Jury. That affidavit would be- offered
evidence.
Mr.Carisle-I; would have be seen what right the
Grand Juror had TO make such an affidavit.
The Dhtric Attorney had been of the opinion that Mr..
Walker and Mr.. Woodbridge summoned before the
Grand Jury not in the matter of the prosecution Of Mr
Sokes but of the prosecution another party AS to the
certificate from the a, docket be submitted that il was
competent for the court 10 inquire the facts Of case
i a man delivered himself up to the jaor and friend
1t his witness to the offence he aned
would hardly be contended that the friend would 81 that
act be cons tu,ed witness for the United States He
nhO,iti tha foctu ~
Of these witnesses should be put the ut
stance of the defence and the part of prosecution
Mr. Magruder continued his argument in support OF the
motion.
Mr. Carlisle replied in opposition. The decision OF this
motion could have effect except perhaps, 10 consgn
Mr. Butterwcrth to the pleasant animation of the
counsel for the prisoner, and protect him from what
might be the unpleasant cross OF the counsel
for the prosecution Who Mr. Bnt,erworths He
said TO be agen,leman who cooay looked the whole
TRANSMISSION, and then politely stepped up to Mr. sckcs
took bis and walked away II Mr. Butterworth had
made an oath charging Mr. Sckes with the murder
| Of Mr Key COUNSEL would ike to hear it.
Mr.. Magruder-Here il Is. An affidavit thai Mr. Sickes
| shot anu Killed Mr. Key
Mr. Carisle-That Is not the charge here The charge
With pistol i in his nand~his red right hands.andng
over the body Of his victim, and by his ride stands his
confederate That confederate is examined before the
Coroners Jury and there is clearly shown that he is
confederate ana yet the argument here that the govern
ment hopeessly welded to the testimony Of that
federate It struck him (Carlisle) that not
sary argue the absurdty of that proposition. The
ter the dscres Of the Court The rule OF law
cessQTe where the reason does
exist the rule ceases to apply The cases cited in the
books mere instances in which the Court, for the
PURPOSES of public justice, had exercised its dis
cretNn in compelling the production Of witness.
Was this 10 in1uce his Honor TO exercise that dis
creonS He appreheDded it was not He referred to the
OF Edwards and argued that the ruling in that
did apply this. The two concerned were,
in common parlance srumpets the Grand Jury who ex
amined them did deem them worthy of credit, and
their names were placed upon the stand they
examined by his then colleague Mr. Radcliffe
and more tender cross examination he had seldom wit
aecad he ron ttarf nr
OF his Honor's discretion his Honor thought that, for
the purposes of public Justice the motion should be grant
ed they were not here TO deny IT, 1hey wanted merely
that the granting denying Of the motion should be IN
the interest Of public justice
DECISION AGAINST THEIR BEING CALLED
The Judge proposed by the counsel for the defence
that the Court direct the prosecution to to the
stand Mr. Butterworth, Mr. Walker and Mr.. Woodbridge
30 as TO give the defence opportunity to
them This Court never has gone further than did In
the of Edwards which has been mentioned. That
was case where the wtnesses-two women, named
Garcia and Raymond-were committed 10 Jail in default Of
their recognzanco to appear and testify for the prosecu
ton. They were held In Jail that original commitment
at the time the motion made In that the Court
did say that it thought that wise exercise Of dis
ceion to direct the District Attorney put these persons
on the stand The that followed that the
case OF Herbert, where named Gardiner, an init
of Herbers went from his room across
the hotel where the homicide committed, and
with him Herbert) and examined the part of the
defence To be sure on the hearing OF the habeas
|
case to put Gardner the stand Mr. Butter being
before the Coroner does not in Judgment ente the de-
fence to have him called by the United States In the first
place. the Coroners inquest in this case held within one
hour and half two hours after the death, held
w,how any leea advce so lar as was known the Zorro
ner 10 the exercise OF his judgment thought ut TO bring
Mr. Butterworth before the inquest do not think that
action binds the United States TO the asked To be
enforced in this case. II is said however, that the pri
honer was committed on the affidavit OF Mr.. Buerworth
The evidence in the shows when melancholy
Affair took place Mr. Buerworth present. and that
after II was all he took the Of the prisoner,
| or the prisoner took bis arm and they retired TO-
gether. l think II Is not going too far for the
| Court to say tina. it Is a far presumption that
| the affidavit be made at the jail was an act
| friendly TO the prisoner that IT done TO
prevent, probably thorough examination at that time;
and may have been wisely done the prisoner had the
right 70 withhold any entering into examination of
the case then. This strikes es being something
like the case Of Gardiner he too associate Of the
prisoner, Mr. Herbert 30 far the Court can Judge from
tho tt.n A. -