The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-07-04

kind, ives the United States nssd q 1laAeASued ash
yeich sppeszs % sustain fully my conclusion The
principal snthostes barring upon he hight o. duty Of
/. si s:s :. S.s IL: ' s.s . 4 r.:
os % S .ss ss sss y; mo
Ton ton % Sna,a an Indictment which was granted
ono hi. soS nv very full
manuscripts report OF case ia the Court Of General SEES
the opinion pronounced by Wheaton COUNTY Judge.
upon motion to quash for want OF proof before the
Grand Jrry, Of the ocpss d4St The decision granting
the People Restenblau q Abbott 2ss) which holds
that the oand Jury cannot indct without having
principle does not touch the present application for here
the Grand Jury had evidence the commission
of the oeace under their oaths thew were to Judge
Of is weight effect In reference 70 the other branch
OF the present application to the C0uto control the
District Attorney e TO the time Of trying the ndicment
against the defendant Strong-thero can DO doubt
OF the power Of the Court 70 interfere in proper case
Tor the protection Of the rights q the accused
s7ll the Court ssy, at was = matter addressed
TO the sound discretion Of tho Court below whether they
would interfere with the order Of trial OF the In
1cteo The statute secures TO persons Jointly indicted
ior felony the right Of separate trials but does not
give 70 them tho right 70 regulate the time order Of
such trials The pubic prosecutor controls and directs
on these matters subject 70 the direction of the court
cases calling for ntereence It cannot be assumed by
The GrsnS s snr certainly not court OF revsw that
cens evidence or from improper motives or that the
public prosecutor has unworhy procured Indictment
against an innocent individual and delays the trial in
order 70 deprive another person indicted for the
offence OF the benefit Of his testimony. OF that
kino should be broush 10 the knowledge OF the Court
~ cannot be doubted that measures would be
taken 70 secure 70 the persons indicted their
just rights and fair trials In that case (which was
charge OF felony the defendants demanded separate
trials and motion was made In the below that the
Court direct the District Attorney try the co-defcnd
ant OF the party, in whose behalf tho motion was made
irst which was refused The duties Of the District Al
torneys ONCE sufficiently responsible and onerous
without being perpexed by any unwarrantabc ntefer
ence from any quarter In this county his office one
OF very great trust and has been filed by gen
tleman more faithful TO all its requirements than its pro-
sent incumbent Nothing appears to justify the Court
in questioning his motives conduct in any manner
IN Withdrawing from him his acknowledged rights over
all criminal prosecutions There Is nothing unusual In
his course or management, exhibited by the moving
papers, and had the learned counsel for the defendant
been more familiar with the powers duties and usages
or that Office than he claimed to be in his argument he
no doubt would have refained from the reflections upon
the prosecuting officer in which he INDUCED The
ton Is denied In both aspects OF IT, and upon all the
grounds upon which 1t urged and the clerk will enter
an order TO that effect