New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-03-14

w,
occur.
The hardship upon the defendant is greater
than at first would appear; we have some eS-
perience and therefore speak feellngly' Inc
claim suspended over his head by the ex-senator
plaintiff is $4,000. If such claim is anything
more than an idle threat, it is sad impeachment
in the way of business man. Those who' IKE
the plaintiff, think it something more than all
idle threat, will constantly suggest that the de-
PENDANT sis about to put,o has put, his property
out of his hands," The extent to winch Such sug'
gestions injure a business man Is not eaShy
measured. Beside this, tho risk he runs OF ever
getting his witnesses together aSaIn-ior cncy
may forget. or be tempered with, or leave the
country, or die-or, what is more probable. re-
fuse to come down to Brooklyn again. upon
fools errand--lor how can they tell that therc
will not be another postponement' But. what
is of scarcely less Importance. these witnesses,
who have come. in obedience to the mandate
of the law, hundreds Of miles from their homes,
ought not to be twice vcxed in the same cause
The well.known maxim of the law forbds It,
unless for a good aud legal reason. And what
reason was, in fact, in this case giyen' Merely
that counsel misadyisel their client that leglS-
lators could not be compelled to attend. MIS-
takes of law never excuse hymcn-so runs the
MISUNDERSTANDING that Court should hold That
they do excuse lawyers but, even here' thc
defendants counsel came to the rescue OF their
legal brethren they offer to procure the at
tendance of those very legislators at the ex-
pense Of their client, if only the privilege could
be afforded them of proving that what had been
charged against the plaintiff was true. wit
nesses could be procured from Albany III day,
or even in a few hours. The plaintiff 3 whole
case was admitted upon the rccord-all the
duty of giving proof fell upon the defendant;
and it would require days, and perhaps weeks
to give it, The plaintiff could only give EVIL
dence after all this was done and then merely
in rebuttal. We earnestly insist that the
learned Judge is bound to give the public
some reason for decision like thus. Judges
arc by law bound TO give the reasons
| for their decisions. and our lawyers
j
shelves are loaded with volumes Of such
opinions Here is case Of great public i'm
portance-a decision most extraordinary III Ito
Misunderstanding harshly not only suitor,
whom plaintiff has dragged unwiilingy before
a court but great number of witnesses rcSid-
ing in different parts Of the State. And what is
more, aud what we confess vexes us most, 1t rs
one OF those suits which We think calculated
/ To break IN upon our present most ruinous
system of corrupt legislation, and drag to light
the villains who have 80 long fed upon the
public. What we want 10 know il, Why we
can never. never. never, get chance to drag
these villains into daylight Why, whenever
IN opportunity Offers, some Judge excludes the
evidence. or postpones the trial. We think we
have a right to ask these questions, and are
entitled % an answer. Not that we mean 10
charge any improperly in the present case;
what We wish b know is mhy this decision was
proper Shall We be enlightened