The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-08
TIE BROADWAY THEATRE OUTRAGE.


The Broadway theatre outrage case was resumed
yesterday morning at the Essex Market Police Court,
before Justice Shandey.
Sheriff O'Brien's counsel argued at considerable
length on the following points,
The Sheriff being constitutional ofilcer IL is
doubtful how far the Legislature can interfere with
him.
They cannot abolish the once, although they may
regulate Its duties to q certain extent.
The Sheriff stands as a CONSERVATION OF the public
peace and is possessed Of great powers The Metro
p0ltan Police bill does not interfere with him.
Therefore, when the Sheriff OF this county or his law
fully constituted deputy goes to execute process
he goes in twofod characteristics. az a
conservator OF the peace. az at common
law; second, as the minister OF the court,
whose process he is to execute. Much OF his duty in
the latter capacity is regulated by the law,
although part OF II is prescribed by the statutes.
party In whose favor process is issued to the
sheriff can not only give instructions to . Sheriff
winch will excuse him from his general duty, but
bind MIN to the performance OF the particular duty
Counsel declared that had both the persons
wounded on the occasion In question been killed,
even ever sD0~ga aeperate!y u would have been lusti.
sherifs to announce thor official capacity
ing the theatre, and the resistance made was alto
exposition OF what he meant as to executing the pro-
cessn was disposed Of as ssmply absurd.u Counsel
held that Judge Barnard had no power to control
the Sheriff after the process had passed into his
hands. When the general deputy and his assistants
whether appointed by the Sheriff or not is imma-
teral, although In this they so appolnted
passed the open outer door the building was in
their possession and the parties therein were CON-
manded TO obedience. at was the foot OF the law
that had entered 1t was its majestic presence that
was there; 1t was Its power that demanded submits
sion; 1t was Its mandate that was 10 be obeyed. In
the performance OF their Official duty the ministers
Of the law were not called upon recedc or retire
to the WALL II attacked.n The dignity OF the
law rivited them to the spot they occu-
pied and forbade even the yielding or
an inch to those who resisted. The sheriff
had the right to make the arrest in the night time
II the defendants gave notice Of their character
any time, from that moment all resistance should
have ceased, and those who continued 1t did so at
their peril. It IS no answer TO say they did not
know Hickey and his associates to be officers OF the
law. The duty OF disclosing the officers character
capacity, aud the cause or nature or his mission,
In only due to those who submit not to those who
sst from the start without waiting for explana-
ton. II the unlawful resistance was at first con-
fined to o single individual, all who afterwards
joined themselves to MIN, or espouscd his cause,
equally guilty, whether they acted willingly or
not. Tney took the risk OF what they did.
After hearing the summing up for the defence,
Justice Shandley announced that he would render
his decision on Friday next