New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-07-01
EDWARD B. KETCHUM.
APPLICATION FOR HIS RELEASE ON HABEAs
CORPUS,

IT, whose forgeries In 1865 made such sensation should
not be released the prisoner with his counsel and the
Distrct-Attorney dr Carving appeared before Judge
Barnard yesterday. Judge Bedford sat beside Judge
Barnard throughout the argument The District Attor
ney stated that he had been Monday served with the
writs in the case Of Edward T. Ketchum, now serving
out sentence for forgery To the habea corpus ne re-
turned an original copy Of his conviction and sentence
for forgery IN the third degree and his confession 10
the certioTar they returned the indictment the cuc
tion and J" ,Vandervoorts certificate Of the record
Judee Barnard said before he granted the VIRUS no
had examined those papers carefully ana from tna' CA
animation had satisfied so far as he coud DC Oh
an exnarte examination aud before hearing what the
District might have to say that the prisoner
WAS sentenced for an offence Of which he had cot been
properly convicted. Mr. Bartlett who appeared lor 'e
prisoner said that as that the substance OF their
claim he had nOthn nOre TO say III opening, Gue Ho
wait for Judge Gar ms aIgunet ~ in This
reply it. Judge Garvn answered the % n5
nasSod fraulnIently ON national bank 90 forged goa
checks knowing them 70 be forged ana procured S Jun
which mad been passed on by the courts 800 times But
it did matter whether the Indictment was corfgce al
Special Term or at Chambers. had the Ilghl 10 iheL
| fere by habeas corpus where judgment 81 81
| a CouTt of competent jurisdiction had passed
into execution except in the cases expressly PROVIDED
for by statute 1t had never been done, heTGt t Tr
expressly by statute we're the case OF bringing prisoner
to trial for an oense committed IN prison Whe 9ne.
sentence where prisoner had become insane, ana he
Court sent him TO insane asylum ana where prisoner
was confined under sentence OF the court Oh 0Iy t
Sessions Judge Barnard asked IL a supreme CourG
Judge could not interfere where man was eohvcIeG vi
petit larceny and sentenced for manslaughter MI MI
y1n said that was not the he was talking OF Inns
was the case of a indicted for forgery VINO
the forgery convicted OF forgery ana was
for thar forgery 10 four years and six months lmprSo
ment Three years and six months OF laI sen'SuSo u
elapsed this day; six months OF his sentence Iau pvs
removed under the statute. by ms GOOd cOnuucti
SIX months Iloi Tl5ct of frrrcr1es shonld tho
-, atnl nv hQbf08
The Indictment was good IL charged the uttering or
false fraudulent, and counterfeit notes Ihey were ae
nestled as securtes and money drawn on them as secu
rites Was not that forgery In the light or the nine
teenth century, The statute made 1t forgery Tue prs
Oner admitted 10 70 be forgery. Everybody knew u 10
be forgery II wicked, wlltul damnable forgery
But this writ could not be prosecuted unless an p pre-
dent all common all statute law were 10 be walked
over II his Honor had granted as he himself Sonel
when judge had done the writ by lhanNeItehGe, now
when his Honors attention called 70 the law no
should go further This sentence was the final Judg
OF Court OF competent jurisdiction Inc Dlsirct
Attorney read from the Revised Statutes the provision
that persons held under the final Judgment OF court OF
competent jurisdiction were not entitled 10 the VIII
The reason for this that by such a judg,
ment all questions had been adjudcated, and
single Judge on writ OF haoeas cor
lie had in his pocket from the Court Of Appeals
informing him that in the Majado case that the Court
had decided that indictment for murder IN the rst
degree conviction Of murder IN the second degree was
valid But If this KIND OF habeas corpus Were 10 be
allowed apv Judge might let Ketchum any other
criminal out OF prison Would Judge Barnard. who had
so nOby his duty under unusual circumstances SET
County Judges had the same power with the supreme
Court Judges to grant wrs OF habeas corpus Was 70
be tolerated that they oud be permitted 10 let every
criminal 20 on nominal BAIL The prisoners remedy
was II ne falsely imprisoned writ OF error Let
him take that remedy he choose. Had there been
trial he might before sentence have brought MS VIII OF
bill Of exceptions and thus stay the execution
stood that ground ana on II he insisted III TINS man
were discharged man would stay IN states Prison no
man would got his deserts who had money enough ogve
bail II this discharged the seat of justice
would be sOed in such way as II never had been be-
| tot 1ao al whether
tanned the Oeuse OF forgery ne should not Insult me
Court by arguing IT. His Honor must Know me law ny
heart He must have passed on 1t as Recorder many
MI BARTLETT for the prisoner said The case comes be-
fore the Court on two writsa writ OF hdbcas corpus aud
a writ OF cerOrdrL TIE prisoner is imprisoned for
different offense from that Of which he convicted
for felony OF which no has not been convicted, and fo
which has beeu tried or held 70 answer upon any
presentment or indictment Of Grand jury and cOnse
oueuty his Imprisonment illegal aud unconstitutional
aud the sentence 10 imprisonment under when ne i
held utterly void from the beginning. The prisoner II
undergoing punishment In the state Prison at sing sing
General Sessions in this city December 80 1863 to fOu
wears and s months mprisonme state Prison Th
sentence for the felony Of forgery Ia the third degree
The only offense of which tho prisoner has beer
forged checks Uttering and publishing forged checks
as true and with intent to deraud, Is an ofense but
not forgery any than 10 Is arson mansaughter
TO forge is TO maketO faDrcate. blacksmith iorge
horseshoes, and you might a. wei say that hpist
FORCES them he travels with them his feet
10 say that merely utering forged instrument const
tutes forgery LORD Coke says To forge Is metaphor
cay taken from the smith, who beatcth upon his anvil
and fOrgeth what fashion or shape he WILL 3JusI l69
| Forgery at common law is defined the fraudulent
making or alteration OF n writing TO the prejudice OF
anothers rights. a Blac., Com 24lJ Forgery IN thC
third degree Is dehned WIN precision Dy me statute Jaw
OF State 1t is FTS CONTRIBUTING the gold or sil
coin OF any foreign Government or country WIN thl
intent OF exporting Tue same 10 IlyuIo vi 4elIauo
| any foreign Government or the subjects thereof
and Second: Falsely making, altering, forging or cOun
tereIting, with intent to deaud certain instruments OF
writings g r. s. Part sections D. ). 10 Is the making
forgery. Uttering ana publishing Is quite dlueIcu
thing from making and forging. Itering and publish
ing does consulate forgery To utter means sub
stantlally 70 offer Bishops Or Law 22D. UtteunI
and publishing within the meaning Of the statute is offer
ing with intent % defraud. (See Bishops Cr L., 565
and there cited The distinction between forgery
Or making-aud utteriug or publishing, would seem u
be sufficiently clear from the intrinsic difference IN th
meaning Of words themselves II there were 10 autloIl
ties the subject the difference between the Ingredient
necessary constitute the two Onense respectively
70 be too apparent 10 leave room Tor discussion W,
not however, without authority directly point No
only do the eemenywfters treat uteng ashOt cOusti
tuting forgery q bshOps or L., 552 t0Jl Dut We nave
adjudication Of this precise questouand that TOO BY
the Supreme Court Of this state. In The People agt
Rynders az Wendell4 25 savage, g. J III delivering TN
decision of the Court said THE prisoner - indicted To-
forging the cheek ana als9 lor puDHsnlhR taS true
knowing 10 to he false IheSe are dW9eW CyeHses
The prisoner might be e0nrtcted Of one and no
OF Wt oWeT Anu loIuieIly ~ Lhslauu, uIteIns ooii
terieit money was punishable ny one year lmpison
ment when forgery and CONTRIBUTING were felony, pun
ishable by DEATH without benefit of clergy. as aud II
prisoner convicted indictment for utternR
publishing certain gold checks. He pleaded guilty
VI course tne pea o g9ly appnea 20 VI,
charge contained in the indictment, and did moi
! extend DcyOu1 that, either 10 any Otner CnafgI
or any other ohense. lie was sentenced for for
gerry in the third degree There prescntment or in
dctment against him for that offence. The Constitution
OF State provides that person shall be held 10
for Infamous crime unless on presentment or In
dctment OF Grand Jury art J. sec. %. The Revised
Statutes define the term Infamous crime including
every offence punishable with Imprisonment in Stat,
Prison e II. s., p TG2) The felony OF forgery In tn
third degree Is punishable with Imprisonment in The
State PRISON. dbid, D. 675) We thus find the prisoner
confined in State Prison for infamous crime, FOL
which he has not been held TO by presentment
| indictment Of a Grand Jury and in violation OF
the paiues provisions Of the Constitution Is there any
lawful mode of releasing himl IL would be anomaly
In the law II could be imprisoned In manifest de
hance Of the plain letter Of the Constitution, ant
| yet way exist by which he cOuld be released
Such condition OF things might wen give