The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-12

Decision Of Justice Shandley-D. 'scharge Of the
Deputy sheriff..
After o long and thorough investigation OF the
Broadway theatre outrage case. patieiH reading
or the vouminous evidence taken and nature de-
liberation on the able arguments made by the legal
gentlemen on either side Justice Shandley yester
day rendered the following decision
The Importance given TO this case by ia publicity.
and the high Official station OF the Defendants seem
to require ut my hands more than an ORDINARY int-
nation as to the reasons which nave iinpehed me TO
the conclusion at which, alter an .snsut a ana
all the ground OF the reasons heretolore given
by me for granting the motion OF the learned s0un
sci the discharge OF three OF the parties originally
Joined complaint, will merely reiterate the iact
that am well satisfied that all the officers engaged W
authorized and empowered for that purpose, and
not only legally engaged in the performance Oh
q strictly legal act but In one which IL was com
pulsory upon them to perform for the maintenance
OF the majesty and supremacy or the law. .
Passing the conflicting statements OF the W.T.
for the In relation TO the party or
parties who actually wounded Wilson and Chamber
lain, will only remark That do not deem t neces-
sary to look any further into that branch Of the case
than to inquire whether the Defendants Hickey ana
Moore being part OF q body OF persons legally as
signed to perform high official duty, transcribed
their powers and wantonly and unnecessarily used
their weapons to the danger and injury Of innocent
and un0nending parties. My attention has been
called TO the second section, article one title TWO
page 939 Revised Statutes, which provides a. i0l-
such homicide Ia justinable when committed by
public officers and those acting by their command IN
their aid and assistance either first, in obedience to
any Judgment OF q competent court; or second,
when necessarily committed Ia overcoming actual
resistance to the execution OF legal process
to the discharge of any other legal duties &c.
Here, then, the law Is plainly and clearly laid
down. That the defendants were public officers ana
in the execution Of legal process, and that they
were unlawfully and violently resisted. has to my
mind been established beyond q doubt. The only
remaining question to be disposed OF is whether the
injured parties, Wilson and Chamberlain, were ac-
tuay engaged IN the interest OF Harkins In resisting
and preventing the execution OF the process against
him (HarkinsL
Now, the evidence goes to show that both Wilson
and Chamberlain were IN the employ OF Harkna,
who, az clearly proven by Mr. VIM. A. Moore, busl-
ness manager, had leased the theatre for one week,
including the night Of the occurrence Il Is also
by the employees OF the theatre that warrant Oh
arrest had been issued for arks, that trouble was
expected from more quarters than one, ana tnat
arrangements had been made to prevent the execu-
ton OF the warrant. The management had gone SO
far to provide the substitution OF another actor
In the place OF Harkins for the evenings perform
ance. Wilson says that he thought the officers were
party OF roughs from the other theatre; put tue
evidence proves that before he and chamberlain were
shot the officers had loudly and repeatedly declared
themselves sheriff5 and also their GRAND. Ward,
Leary, Quinn and Sparhawk are positive upon that
point as well as the important fact that the officers
wore badges IN full view. 1t Ii also shown that the
employees OF the house numbered ten or nfteen per.
and that the Oicers were assaulted py several
OF them after they had announced themselves IL
matters whether they all resisted at first or not
30 lOUR db Llcy JOlucu uuu cSpOuscu VIC SouSC VI
those who did they all equally guilty and took
the risk OF the consequences OF their acts.
1t can scarcely be seriously argued, ! think, that
upon an occurrence OF this kind submission and re-
treat became the duty OF the ministers OF the law;
rather ut Is the power Of the law that demands sub
mission; 1t Is Its mandate that L. to be 0beyed'
hardly think 1t necessary to recaptuate the numer-
authorities submitted by counsel. The statute,
applicable to the case s SO pain and the evidence
30 free from ambiguity doubt, that have no hes
tation saying in the fun CONSCIOUSNESS OF my duty
that the defendants Hickey and Moore, have fully
and entirely excupated themselves from any legal
wrong as charged against them. The motion to dis
charge Is therefore granted.