The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-05-31
TIE CoUR 7 S.
vmJep STATES CIRCUIT cOuaI.
The Prnssian Exsradition Cnse.
Before Judge Sn,pman.

rhe Prn-sian ExsraditiOs Case.
Before Judge Sn'pman
I'm ne f,,se AZ ne ESruhtioa Of Phtiip ReNrseh The
hearing OF he case was resumed al nine O'Clock yeser-
DAY morning
Mr. W. Zach, Acting Consul General, and Mr. Henry
n Lapaugh, counsel for the Prussian government were
present mr Charles wehe appeared for the defendant
who was by virtue or the writ OF habeas corpus
Mr. wehie resumed mis- argument in support Of the
POSITION by him that his client be discharged,
substantially upon the grounds thar his imprisonment
h violation OF law, that tho Commissioners commit
sing bn rad jurisdiction In the premises, and that the
evd agains, him wholly insufficient 10 support any
criminal charge whatever Counsel con,ended that the
Illegal inasmuch tho party representing
gnled States Marshal not legally deputzec to
IN the matter, was not citizen OF the United aes
that me made the arrest without the knowledge
Of the United States Marshal OF Wisconsin, Of
which State Heinrich was resident, and in which he
was arrested that said Marshal was the only person
who could locally deputze another 70 make the arrest
and that the United States Marshals tof the Southern
District Of New York; authority 10 the matter
oeQuently illegally exercised On this point
furhor contended that there IL authority for any
Marshal to execute any precept beyond the limits Of his
cannot acquire jurisdiction tho person Of
man brought before him IN the Hen
~ hsDsas sSs 81 Ss psous
- be their psrsons houses papers and ELECTS
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated Counsel maintained that Henrich's arrest
and transportation from his home distance Of
twelve hundred miles was violation Of the principle
The Cour-Did you raise the question or legality or
Miegality OF the arrcsa before the Commissioner
Mr.. wehle-I raised the question and offered to sup
port u by the afndavl or tho PRISONER.
The Court-That will not do You cannot raise ques
Non OF This kind upon an ex parte AFFIDAVIT That not
Mr. Lapangh-Your honor, ! objected to tho reading
- the affidavit at the time and 1t ruled by
Commissioner.
Mr. Wehie There WAS other way OF proving II; IL
soay appeared when We got into the evidence
TSyS.f IA. rhnp IF thaa
the party HIMSELF and the law presumes that every
ksows the law he should, therefore, have objected in
tane, instead OF which You waive the objection
Mr. wehie. made the objection as soon As learned
mo facts.
The Court shall override that objection. A man
cannot raise leqal objection atter the proper time
the ground that his counsel Of tho objec
Sion Till was too late II Is an immovabe principle Of
common law that every man ID presumed TO know the
hr wehle then proceeded to contend tina, the com
paint itself was invalid and void, in Joining large
hUmber OF alleged distinct offences charge, aud
that repec. was against the spirit and letter Of the
The Cour-Do you contend that II a man was charged
With the crme OF murder in instance-oDs specific
BY charging him with ton murders he could
Mr. wehs-l presume he has right to be defended on
enc charge.
which the treaty does not say q word. The treaty only
yrescrbes the rule OF evidence; and IL you made
out that The complaint was insufficient, should not
discharge he on habeas corpus. should hold him
tl The government could make out proper form Of pro-
esodng
Mr Iapaugh-we thought your Honor We might be
Ssprchensible II proceeded only upon one charge.
The 0ourt--And think yon would have been rebuked
ey tho court IL you had With regard the previous
aucs,cn to the arrest Mr.. Lapaugh the arrest
made under the assumption that this man. under the
peculiar form OF proceeding with was deputized
The Marshal 20 make the arrest anywhere the party
should be foundf
Mr. Lapaugh-That was the assumption We sup-
posed the warrant In this issued by
badge Of the supreme Court-was sufficient arrest
pan anywhere within the territories Of the United
Tho Court notice difference IN the concluding
portion Of the order. Il does not say ITO be found
W1ahn your precincts;' but 10 commands you, and
every OF you, 70 apprehend the said Heinrich &c
lengthy discussion then followed on the construc-
don 70 be put the treaties OF 1848 and 1850 between
sAe United States and Prussia as 70 tho rendition OF
ssEtives from either country.
- evidence Of crmnay presented in the papers and
documents sent from Prussia justify the govern
The CourThe form Of the evidence and tho character
the evidence 10 to DO determined by the place from
whence he comes. whether admissible or not II ad-
issbic II is admissible here for 1t
Uorth. Is question Of weight Of evidence II the
Courts here to determine the admssioity Of every
pscc OF evidence, no could be cxtraditcd and
treaty could be executed The weight of the evidence
another thing We cannot play fast and loose,
apply technical OF evidence these
apply In cours The evidence that Is admitted
z tho German courts we are bound to admit here
DDunsol appears TO mix the questions TO the weight Of
The evidence and its admissibilty.
Mr. Wehe then took up the question OF the alleged
scnSeson OF the prisoner to the marshal NJ the time Of
hb arrest
The Court iniInated that counsel might not argue on
hat point, the confession would have weight with
him.
Mr. wchie thon concluded
Tho Court regretted that he could not proceed with
souusc for the Prsian government that no would let
oUunsel know when no could resume tho hearing OF
argument and would also let Mr. iapaosh know the
pgocise points upon which he would like 70 hear him in
Reply 10 counsel on the other side.
Mr.. Lapaush said that the government which he rcp
yuDsnted In the preferred walt the convenience
e the Court especially his Honor the importance
- settling those vexed points in the construction Of
90 stipuat,ons Of che treaty which often embar.
pusd the officers OF both governments than push on
0e case further AZ present
The then adjourned to some day TO bcshere.
o1ser named.
9he Case Of Heary steele, Jr., Convicted ON
q Charge or Forging a Widows Pension
Certihcnte--A New Trini Ordered.
h EAe cas- q tie United States Heayy Stee,e, Jr.-
~ defendant In this few weeks ago. jointly
With tso Others. indicted and put trial charge
- having forged the name Of one Bridget AcCards 70
~saews pension oeriacsse, and OF having forged
osAariai certificate The hearing OF the case occupied
- eou couple OF days and resulted in the conviction
- the defendant Steele. The point taken BY coun-
MAT no forgery was committed IN the case the nsru
g1suino signature On this point counsel moved FOR
1ew trial, and this motion Judge Shpman yesterday
delivered the opinion Of the Court and said -"In the
80 Of eses convicted Of forgery, the judgment OF the
Ossrt oopcurred In BY Judge Nelson thss tho csrtin
0ss In question: though false and fraudulent was not
oaotod" OF course the indictment will have 70 be dis
A1ed and the defendant discharged he acquitted
- all the other counts.
re Case or John III. Trap. Convicted on q
Charge Of ForginG . soldiers Bosuty Ger.
siAcasc-A New Trial Denied. and Trap 10
- Sentenced Te-mOrrew.
Judge shipman NEXT proceeded 70 give The opinion Of
he Court In The case Of J. n Trapp the Of
Hrapp, convicted . charge Of forging . soldiers
seunty certificate viii formally announce the
ne defendant who is here that the Judgment that
trial shan be granted TINS case that the oct OF
oS does not repeal the act OF 1928 commended FOR BY
counsel far this offence n concerned. Judgment
vii be entered formally tomorrow IN presence Of the
prisoner when b shall bc brought up for sentence
With regard tho charge Of the Court In the case TO
which objection vas taken, that charge s marked with