The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-09-08


The District Attorney also produced an AFFIDAVIT OF
one Charles X. WiIet, who does not state where he
who says that Leland came to 81 South street P6iIa
delphla. and bought q city warrant Of the city OF
Philadelphia OF the value Of $233 90. He then esti
fies, on information and belief that two warrants
exact counterparts Of the one so bought by Leland
each for 81 000 were sold to brokers In Philadelphia
and that said warrants were forged.
Now, this Is all the testimony in the case; and
upon this commitment and this proof am asked to
remand citizen OF this State, one who has for
merry borne an unbemisned character, SO that he
may be sent to the State OF Pennsylvania be there
tried for this alleged crime. Before can remand
this prisoner IN order that he may be sent back
must be satisfied Of three things-First that crime
has been committed In Pennsylvania; second, that
mater sim a mas tr6 M @ OF the
ment explicit enough on Its face sufficient to inform
this Court as to whether crime has been c0mmittedp
certainly think 1t Is not. The rule is that the Of
fence must be stated In the commitment with rea-
sonaele certainty, 80 that the Court determine
whether the cause Of commitment is suficient in
law or not and such certainty should appear In the
commitment as Will enable the Court to determine
the question. For If the commitment be against
law, as II made by magistrate who had no juris-
dicCOn, or II q matter for which by law person
cannot be punished, the court must discharge Hence
the certainty OF the commitment ought to appear;
and where commitment is liable to the same OBJ
lection, where the SO loosely stated that the
Court cannot adJudge whether there was a reasona.
BILE ground OF commitment or not commitment
does not sufficiently state the offence by simply de-
signaling 1t by the species or class OF crime to which
the committing magistrate may consider IL to be-
long; but 1t ought 10 state the facts charged or
found TO constitute the offence with suficieit par.
tlcuarty to enable the court en- return to the ha-
charged against the prisoner. This commit
ment fails to do this, and upon this ground
The afidavtt of Mr.. Wiilet does not remedy IN any
particular the defects contained In the commitment.
merely embodles hearsay statement that the pri-
soDer Leland is charged with crime in Pennsylvania
and Is fugitive from Justice This is
fective In this respect Moreover It should have In
corporated an authentic copy OF the charge or in
dtctment against the prisoner in Philadelphia. TO
enable q magistrate to arrest and examine an al
legged fugitive from justice from another State it
must be shown by complaint in writing, on oath,
that crime has been committed that the accused
has been charged In that other state with the COM
mission Of such crime, and that he has Ned there
defective In all these particulars. 1t does
not show positively that crime has been committed
ceedings have been taken In law against MIN in that
State, and.only says that he Is fugitive from jus.
tice. 1t might be inferred from the afidavt that
crime had been committed In Pennsylvania but
where inference is not suficent to found the exer.
else OF criminal jurisdiction, am requested by the
District Attorney to hold to the person until the
proper documents come from Pennsylvania, or until
they are procured from the Governor of that State
THIS cannot ,m DO, This court although It's Judges
have always refrained from doing unless In very
scarce and very exceptional cases, and do not
The prisoner must be discharged.
Penitentiary Case.
The People, de-, us. James Rtce.-In May, 1865, the
defendant was convicted charge of larceny and
sentenced to the Penitentary OF the county OF New
York for the term Of three years. The DEFENDANT
now appeared on nabeas corpus, claiming that he
was only fourteen years of age and was not repre- |
sented by counsel at his trial. He claimed that by
the statute provided IN such cases he should under
the circumstances have been sent TO the House Of
Refuge Counsel for the prosecution conended that
IL was discretionary with the Judge who tried the
case to send the prisoner to either place, The de-
PENDANT was remanded to the Penitentlary.