The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-07-20
SUPREME COURT-SpECiAL TERM.
The Dowiing-NEcCIeilan Observation-Disclosures
ment of C0unseI-Thc Case 10 be Resumed
this Morning.
RpfOra Iu1pa CarJozo

The Doyvling.NIcCIeilan Observation-Disclosures
n,ent of C0unseI-Thc Case 10 be Resumed
this Morning.
Before Judge Cardozo.
Mcclellan Us. DO,Uling.-Thfs case came up for
argument and final disposition at eleven O'Clock
yesterday morning. The court room was crowded
by members Of the legal profession and the general
public. Judge Downing was present during the pro-
ceedings.
Counsel for Judge Bowling opened the proceed
ings by reading the anidavt of Mr.. Robert
Ii. Johnston, clerk OF the Court OF Special Ses-
sions, which was simply contradiction OF the
allegations contained in McCellans afndavit in
reference TO the transactions with the wo-
man Christina Hoch. He next read an AFFIDAVIT
made about an hour previously by Judge Bowling in
rebutta OF the matters contained in that OF his adj
District Attorney Garvn read written statement
of his TO the effect that he had never been coun
sci for Judge bowling in any matter whatever, eX-
cepting thai he handed the papers served on hun
Dewling) to him tine District Attorney upon which
the motion was to be heard for mandamus.
Mr.. Mcclellan accepted this statement.
Counsel next read the aflidavit OF Mr.. Shanks de-
nying the truth Of McCellan's allegations refer
ence to conversation which he tMr. shanksl had
with Judge Downing in reference to the difficulty
Mr.. Mcclellan, the complainant then proceeded
to argue his case at length before the Court.
for a mandamus by the realor was two-fold.
First, as refutaton OF the SANDER that
ad been hurled 1, At MN tom ma certain court
test the legality Of the Of that judge presd
ing over that Court of Special Sessions That was
question OF some importance not only to the rea-
tor but TO every member OF the bar. II was ques-
non as TO whether the rights and privileges which
the supreme Court OF this State had vested in an
attorney and counsellor at law, should be taken
from him without due process OF law by the usurpng
action of any Judge. He then proceeded e argue
the law OF the case and cited several authorities
and precedents IN support u his position.
Counsel for RESPONDENT in replying on behalf Of
Judge bowling, said that an extraordinary exhibition
OF feeling had just been had in court on the part OF
Mr.. Mcclellan. Having commented'on the bad taste
SHOWN Dy me relator IN appearing IN ms own Dehaii
instead OF employing other counsel he said that
whatever sympathy his case had created must have
suffered considerably by the exhibition which had
just taken place. He had known Judge Bowling for
twenty-three years, and he did not believe there was
criminal lawyer In New York who would gainsay
that Judge Bowling was unequalled as a criminal
Judge. This was ordinary motion. There
had been intimidation and positive offensive
ness In supporting 1T on the part OF the
reator The attempt had been made here to lntimi-
date the Court and TO get the matter INTO the papers
false light. He felt Tor Mr. Mcclellan, and thought
if he mad struggled as hard to make his marx hereto
fore he had done that day he would be before
the Court under this charge. II Mr. Mcclellan desired
vindcate his course before the court and this
munlty he ought To have asked the Court to allow
him 10 produce testimonials from the different
judges and lawyers OF the city as to good character
and have them filed before this case was
closed. In the year 1868 the Court OF
Special sessions adjudcated on $500 indi-
vlduals. Was that a court to be she cred at
by air. Mcclellan. Did he want TO speak to q Judge
that would not listen TO bImS The Judge said and
knew the fact that Mcclellan was not respectable
and reputable practitioner. court that acted in
year 5000 cases, with the power TO send each
individual 10 the Penltenuary Tor six months wanted
a decent bar, and that was what Judge Bowling
wanted to have, Having shown by reference TO the
laws Of 1855 that the Court OF Special Sessions was
court of record, counsel proceeded TO
argue at length why the mandamus asked
for by the promovant should not be granted
The complainant had not denied that he had re-
ceived the ten dollars from Christina Hook. More
than that he took fifteen dollars merely to SIT by the
side OF the District Attorney as spur to prick his
sides In the prosecution OF the OF the woman
McMuligan, which office no honorable or reputable
lawyer would be guilty OF filing. Mr. McQuade was
the broker In that matter. Mr.. McQuade arranged
the bargain, and he got his proceeds rom Mcclellan
out of that bargain. II that be the transaction,
was not every word ia the afldavt OF Judge Dow.
ling vindlcatedp Mr.. Mcclellan has no right to
complain II Judge Bowling judged him from his
own mouth. Counsel here read from McClean's
aflldavlt IN relation to Christina Hook and John
Fitch, In which II was stated that Mr.. Fitch
had committed wiiful and wanton perjury
Counsel In continuation, sald:- Now who would
speak of the warden OF the Penitentiary that way
Mcclellan has Just put himself before the court in
his atiidavits ana the court TO Judge Of him by
them
1t being now three O'Clock and the argument not
closed the court adjourned until twelve O'Clock 10.
day. when the argument will be resumed.