The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-02-24
The Walton-Mathews Murder.
SUPREME coURT-CHAABERs-
Before Hon. Judge Leonard

BEFORE Hon. Judge Leonard.
FEB 25-In the Matter Of The Habeas Corpus for the Dis
charge CAas A. Jsards-The application Of Charles JEFF
ferds for release from custody the decision Judge
denying the motion, have been published The following
is the opinion the Judge embracing his views on the
merits Of the application. The prisoner, Jeaerds was
committed to prison g. $780, on the warrant Of the
Coroner charged, on the finding OF the Coroners jury
with having caused the death OF John Walton and John
W. Mathews An indictment against Jefierds found
at the Oyer and Termner BY the Grand Jury October 6
1850, for the murder of Walton and Mathews. The pri
sSnsr h has been confined in close custody eve,
other process for that purpose has been issued
Two regular terms of the Oyer and Termner have been
ment was found and term in addition by special
onmen Of the Governor but the trial OF the prisoner
has not been brought on by the District Attorney,
although the prisoner has endeavored TO urge it at
every term OF the court.
The prisoner claims his discharge by of the
great delay which has occurred nearly eight months
since his Imprisonment commenced.
His counsel insist that the statutes Of this State posi-
lively direct his discharge It is provided by the Re-
any prisoner indicted for offence not triabe In a
Court OF Sessions but which may be tried in Court of
shall not have been postponed at his instance,
shall not be brought to trial before the
end Of the next Oyer and Teruslner which
soned after suoh indictment found he shall be entitled
t. be discharged far as relates to the offence for
TO be clearly within the terms Of this section He in
prison has net applied fora postponement Of his trial.
county since the Indictment was found The for
the people reply that 1t ID the Oyer and Torminer only
that can discharge the prisoner and that he applied for
application there denied that the Supreme Court at
Special Term where the present application is pending
discharge, and that by reason Of the denial
Of the application in December last il should be
deemed by the Special Term res jrdscaa even
il this court possess jurisdiction the matter 1t
will be observed that the section of the statutes referred
to says nothing about comforting the authority upon any
is that the prisoner sha be entitled to be discharged
appears to be protection afforded to the prisoner
ensures him speedy trial In conaormy with the right
guaranteed by the constitution Of the United States One
Of the objects of the writ of habeas corpus TO protect
every person in the enjoyment of his liberty unless he
Is lawfully restrained Of it, The granting Of that writ is
enjoned upon every Justice Of the Supreme Court
suitable application. When the writ is granted, and
the prisoner has been brought before him. there no
cepon by law as to the of the Justice to set the
prisoner at liberty If IL appear that he Is unawfully
strained. The next section is also explanatory to the
court which ia authorized to hear this question.
Section thirtytwo provides as follows:-"H satisfac
tory shall be shown by the District Attorney to any
court to which application shall be made under the last
section for OBTAINING such prisoner in custody upon
bail until the sitting Of the next court in which he may
be tried the court shall remand the prisoner shall hold
co cont - that the apylicstion NAV be made
before the courts other than the Oyer and
Terminer II it were not so reference would not be
plcaton shall be made 1t is the right of the prisoner
to demand and have speedy trial 1t is his right to
have his trial at the next Of the court after that
which the indictment shall be found, unless there has
been posponement at his instance If he be not ther
brought trial he s entitled to be discharged unless
the District Attorney show satisfactory for detan
ing him until the sitting of the The decision
of the Judge who held the Oyer and Termner in Decem
Der last is, no doubt, sufficient answer for not
bringing the accused to trial at that term; but
it is no answer for not having brought him
to trial at the term which held in January
1851 1t cannot be possible that denial of appca
on TO be discharged made in December the ground
that greater delay had then occurred than the statute
permits, will bar application the ground, after
another term subsequent to the former application has
elapsed Ishal therefore hold that there legal
existing why the present application should not be
entertained, why it should not be granted, SC
far my authority Jurisdiction has been questioned
Justice of the Supreme Court sitting at Special Term
No cause has been shown by the public prosecutor
for further OBTAINING the prisoner, except that
special term OF the Court Of Oyer and Termner held
in this city has been called by the Governor for the 9th
of February instant, at which term the trial Of tn.
prisoner will, he alleges, be brought on
The short time which will elapse before that court will
be organized and the enormity of the offence with which
the prisoner stands indicted, induce to regard thu
assigned satisfactory one within the meaning
section 81 above referred and to detan the prisone
in custody until the sitting of said special term of tn
Court Of Oyer and Termner The application may STAN
adjourned till March next II may be then renewed
the accused should not have been brought to trial
A. Oakley ball for motion; N J. Waterbury opposed.