The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-10-08
CITY ELLIGEN CE.
THE BROOK s CASE.
The Attempt to Habeas Corpus
Mclaughlin Falls Through.
The Prisoners from New York in
Cou1t - They Are Held in
$4,000 Bail Each.
Court of Quarter s.;e.slOns--.fudse Ludlow.

mo
Mclaughlin the hack driver, before reported, Judge
Iudlow this morning gave the following decsion;-
commonwealth ep rel Neil Mclaughlin vs. Lieut.
Kfllncky Hsbeas Corpus Motion to quash-on
WaJnesday last petition was presented to me, at
hombers puTporting to be the petition OF the rela
Tor II was not signed by him, but was sworn to by
an that the facts stated in the petition were
u,rS To the best of his knowledge and belief
e laSos Sos Se petitioner is now restrained of his
SRerty unusty, as he apprehenus, Dy Marun ,i; MI
acky Lieutenant OF P9ce on Iabc S@ tH observation-disclosures
With his relatives or friends, and that MS counsel
was denied interview win VIII, 9 tnis rotton and ,ts
.ccompanyng alldavit before me, to direct the writ
10 issue this course was promptly adopted ana tle
writ was made returnaoie 'oh lhuiS"''' 0'' - "'
non the return Of the writ the body of the relator
was nroduced in Court, whereupon Mclaughlin made
ma PFoyowing afIidayit viz: "That the writ of
habeas corpus in this case has not been applied Ior
hT him or by any one authorized by him to make
yh % %annIicaton In his behalf and that he has not IN
trusted any counsel to appear for him in the matter
Of this application or hearng t +be ne @ RiSc' A''or
il ia too late to argue that witt OF naDeas corpus
may not upon the petition anu aluaVlI Oh some
version other than the prisoner himself, and this
nrinciple was established long since (see How: ST
r 6i4, 4th Resolution, s25 where the right & OF an
Undson X Eng Law and Ed, Oh. j. Campbell IS re-
ported to have said, ''rhe first day sat here Mrs.
EObbett desired to make a motion on behalf OF her
husband. and / heard her without the slightest
scrupe as my illustrious predecessor, hall, heard
10 John
sons the liberty of the subject in question SO
also the husband may petition on behalf of the Wife,
the parent for the child Ssee W. 4OZ' anu In lact
NO legal relation must exist between the applicants
and the prisoner for any one may petition.
i have been very careful in thus stating the law
that it may clearly appear how anxious we are not
only mot to interfere with the operation of ''the
great writ but in all cases to give to it that force
and effect which its history proves it was intended
10 have While the principles, therefore, upon which
this writ was issued are firmly, and nope forever
settled, it is also true, stated by Hurd, in his
treatise on IIabeas Corpus p 212, that where the
application is made by third person. ii is supposed
h. be SNade IN accordance cb the lcSheS IF the party
restraicd Of his liberty and is allowed to prevent
delay, where the party is represented to be under
any disability OF in any manner t prevented from max
Where, then, it appears that che prisoner himself
does not complain, but may, in fact, desire to be
held in custody, why should the Court interfere
The reason Of the law is the life of the writ You
cannot, in any shape or form, imprson a citizen
Of ali others is most concerned is of mature years,
not an imbecile or unatic, and is otherwise able to
sneak for himself, does not complain OF being de-
prved OF his liberty why should any one else do SO
with legal effect? In one case which is reported
s PERSON boagh up % on habeas
without his request or authority, might maintain al
action ON the case against the party who procured
Upon the return of this writ the relator in sub
stance repudates it. He declares that he never ap
plied for 1t, and never authorized any one to maxi
such an application, and when informed by th
Court that was his constitutional right, not only Il
employ, but freely and without obstruction by an
one to consult with counsel for some reason he de
shines to do So
The reator appears to be of sound mind, of mature
years, and, until IL appears by evidence that he 4
unable to act for HIMSELF the Court must treat hin
rs he evidently desires to be treated.
AS this writ did not issue at the prayer OF the Dis
trct Attorney, although 1t Is the commonwealth
opinion is the whole Court with whom / have con
suited
Ito quaSh) might be granted, but on affidavit pre
sented and under all the circumstances OF the cas-
| prefer 10 take another course and dismiss thu
And now Oct. s, 1869, the body of the relate
having been produced in open court upon the retur
OF this writ and he being Instructed by the court a
10 his legal right to employ and consult counsel,
it appearing, by an affidavit OF the relator that h
counsel or other persons TO apply for said writ or
appear for him, the writ is dismissed and the prison
Knlacky
When his Honor had concluded the delivery {
this opinion squad of policemen and detective
marched into court and produced the three prisoner
who were delivered into the custody of Cur author
nes IN New & dorS yesterday aa "a a great crowd OF pei
qured such an unenviable notoriety, and upon the
entrance commotion was created similar to tina
following the appearance of a noted murderer Tn
men looked worn and fatigued, but were laugbin
and as light in their manner as if they were part
the outraged community, and actually took dellpf
In their own capture and the prospect OF their spee
sOnviction and punishment
District Attorney Sheppard then rose and said =
Lieutenant Kelley under direction Of the Mayo
appears in court, and produces the bodies of Pete
DOnohue alias Pete Bottles; James Dougherty, an
Hugh Maria, alias Maher, who have been arreste
under a bench warrant issued by your Honor q
Monday. ask that they may be taken into custod
and that your Honor may make an order as to iii
amount and character of bail, and the length of M
tice, as in the other cases yesterday.
O. tBy Mr. Cassidy What is the application?
A. (By Mr.. Sheppard) That they may be take
INTO custody, and that an order may be made as
the amount and character of the bail, and the engt
OF notice as in the other cases.
Mr., Cassidy then said -
There certainly is no objection to that-to gyin
bail. But all this could have been done without th
parade-without bringing in a column of soldiers
the only object of which can be to arouse nubli
sentiment and opinion about these men. One office
could nave brought In these men without this show
Ihere might nave been an intimatOn to me abou
the matter, for undoubtedly it was known that wa
one OF the counsel in the case. suppose the cours
will be taken as intimated i'll your HonOrs order Z
yesterday. The same rule viii apply to one AZ to m
Others. As to the ory-eight hours that is the mi
lie rule OF Court OF course nothing further is to i
Judge Ludlow said Let bail be entered Cor eoc
OF these men in $40 900 to appear at the present ter
OF this court believe there is bill Of Indictment
Ans. CBy Mr.. Sheppard) Yes sir.
Judge Ludlow said:-That will take of itse,
Then let bail be entered in $4,000 for each of tIes
men, freehold bail two securities each to ustify
tlO0O0 shall refuse less than two securities eaC
for $4,000 wv
q, BY Mr.. Cassidy-suppose there are four?
by the Judge suppose they could be procured.
Mr.. Cassidy said :-YOur Honor's rule limits me
Judge Ludlow said:-I say won't take less In,
Two. Tne men, OF course, to be remanded into Gu
Mr. Cassidy said;-I misunderstood your Hon
The prisoners during these proceedings we
standing at the bar. AS Mr.. Cassidy concluded I
Judge addressed himself to the officials OF the Coul
Have those men taken away"
The prisoners were then removed and the co
sided. "
Habeas Corpus In New YOrk-Their Ar
val In this City.
In the Supreme Court of New York city, Hin
Maria and James Dougherty, who are alleged to
IN