The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-12-15
SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS.

The Lord Bond Robbery Important Opinion
Refusal Of the Application for Admission 10
Bail Of VIM. u. Babcock.
Before Judge Ingraham.
|. IN ~ VIVA r. Babcsk This WAS an application for
the admission TO bail Of the petitioner who had been
indicted for having In his possession 345 900 worth or
the bonds stolen from Rnfns l. Lord, and which
Indictment he had been committed without bail. The
case reported In full in the HERALD on It's argu
ment and the Court yesterday rendered the following
decision:-
The prisoner was arrested on charge Of being con-
csrnsd n the robbery OF the bonds from Rufus l. Lord
against him In the Sessions for receiving the bonds
knowing them to be stolen. On tho 21st November by
order OF tho Court the papers were sent TO the police
Justice for further examinations; afterwards the justice
refused TO take bail and the 1st December the writ in
this case issued rsurnabe forthwith This not
a writ Of habeas corpus but was writ commanding the
police justice and clerk OF the Sessions 10 certify the
Gauge Of the dstenon OF the prisoner for the purpose
considering the question OF bail. After this writ waS
allowed. commitment OF the prisoner by order Of the
Court Of Sessions was granted, This application Is now
importance 20 the right OF prisoner to be discharged
bail have been ably argued before but the views
Is 10 render the decson Of these
IN the present LIST The indictment having been
found against the prisoner before hs arrest il was un
necessary TO have examination before magistrate,
ana became the duty OF the court receiving the in
dictment order warrant 10 issue for the OF
tho party therein charged with felony The order Of tho
Sessions sending the Justice Bowling be inves
tigaed was an unnecessary and Irregular ORDER and
ala not alter the liabilities OF the party or relieve him
from the consequences which followed the finding
OF the indictment against him. The suppostion there
fore that u is simply proceeding 10 review Justice
Downgs decision not 10 admit the praoner bail upon
the ground that the prisoner In offences Of this char
acter, has 3 right To be baed ~ mistake Tho JUS
tce, when the sent back TO him for further
examination. did not acquire right TO let the prisoner
70 ball. That power ceased whenever bill OF Indictment
WAS found and that indictment remained in full force
against the prisoner notwithstanding the order OF the
General Sessions In fact the order Of that send
ing back the case to the police justice unusual
proceeding not provided for by the statute and not
CURED by any rule provision OF criminal law within
knowledge. am referred 10 the opinion Of Judge
Edmonds In tho case or Dewey on these questions but
here the case was in the over and Termner he neweys
had been arrested and brought before astrafe and
had been deprived Of the benefit Of ths examination
provided by the statute by being indicted before such
examination completed. But ia iha,
the learned Justice says-"lt is true that person
he indicted in the first instance without any pre-
iImnary arrest and thus by the action Of tho Grand
Jury be deprived Of the preliminary examination.
The opinion In that does not apply here, and
do not feel NJ liberty 20 give force TO the orders
Of the General Sessions sending the 70 Justice
Bowling for examination because the same was not
warranted required by the statute The prisoner hav
ing boon indicted in the Court OF Sessions that court
had during Its sesOn the right IN Let the prisoner bail
This is provided by the Revised Statutes. Cd VOL 5th
whore by law persons indicted be let 10 bail
for their appearance they may be SO LET TO bail by the
court HAVING Jurisdiction TO try the offence such
corrtbc not sitting by any usce Of the Supreme Court
and II the offence may be tried In Court OF General
Sessions, by county judges and section W prohibits
other Officer from letting 10 bail any person indicted
for any offence II IL apparent from these provisions
that when the sent Justice Bowling he had
authority TO let the prisoner 10 ball. and IL equally
clear that during the session OF the having jnsdc
ton 10 try the offence such alone has authority
under the to let bail and thar Justice OF tho
supreme Court is only authorized to do where the
court has closed It's session II has also been suggested
this application tina. the Court or Sessions has
nted tho prisoner the right to bail has been adj udi
Gated This the decision Of the General Term in the
People against Cunningham, Parker, Or. Rep. PIP $50.
Such would undoubtedly he the proper rule the deci
Of tho Court had been made before the allowance of
the writ and such facts appeared In the return II may
well be doubted whether proceeding babeas corpus
ceriornn be defeated by such commitment made
after the allowance and Issue ofthe writ il - not how
ever necessary for to discuss this branch OF the case
for the before stated think the prisoner az
this time can only he bsed by the Court and That
magistrate OF court bas authority until after The
session OF the court has terminated and then
might he considered cdiufcnlr IL tho Court during
its session shonld pass upon such application. The
prisoner must be remsnded 20 custody