The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-07-01

and IN that respect the proceeding b essentially
T rsnt wSra 70 the Legal definition lem q judgments
end-and the term nnai Judgment. By force Of IL
literal signincation, implies 9 Judgment q the end
ings whatever, TO which the pretended t1dgment
forms natural or fitting conclusion The sentence
stands stan naked solitary ana Alone with nothing BE-
was before the court. and there can be no sucn
thing As court OF competent jurisdiction to pass
long ago az when Lord Hobart was Chief Justlce OF
the Common Pleas OF England that "a cause judged
ny court that hath no Jurisdiction OF the cause IL
utterly void and c0rdM non tadic6." fHoparts Re
ports, 6S.l The court had no jurisdiction Of this
cause, because there had been no presentment or
not get Jurisdiction any other way All the jarsdic-
ton Of the Court Of General Sessions 10 derived from
statute It's sole jurisdiction to punish crimes is In
the words OF the statute ITSELF to punish them 'ac-
cordlng 70 law" and it has no Jurisdiction 70
punish without conviction. And 1t had
would not even be within the power OF the Legs.
lature to confer upon any court authority to
pass sentence In cause not legally before II. Such
proceeding would be IN violation OF natural right
and OF the constitution and VOID 40 anttO. II the
General Sessions could lawfully pronounce this sea-
tenee against Ketchum for an offence OF which he
had not been convicted, then the same court with
equal propriety, might sentence any other man for
an offence 81 which he had not been convicted. II
It could sentence Ketchum Tor forgery Of which he
has not been found gun ty, then II might just as well
sentence. his Exceiiency Governor Hoffman for
mansaughter TO imprisonment Tor life II there
would be no legal foundation for the SEN
tence OF Holman no more was there legal f0un-
daticn Tor the sentence Of Ketchum. YET, would
any lawyer doubt that Governor Holman could I've
rescued legally from imprisonment so imposed Or
would any Judge OF the Supreme Court hesitate 10
such connemenf But It Is said that II the prisoner
was not convicted Of forgery he was convicted Of
something else; that he did plead guilty 10 an IN
dctment for utterlng and publishing certain false IN
struments In writing. The fact that the
prisoner pleaded guilty to an Indictment
charging q dilIerent offence has no bearing on
this A confession VIII extend "a further
than 10 the facts charged in the information; there
fore the offence be not brought by the information
within the act OF Parliament upon which the c0nvic-
ton Ia founded, the defendants confession WIN not
make the conyicuon good. Williams Notes to
Burr, eos, upon which the note OF Williams is
founded, the convection, which was upon confession
was unanimously quashed by the Kings Bench, on
to tue facts charged and the facts charged not
suf1clent to constitute an offence under the
marxsd LS ss, MaHasa n da na case
taken strictly and 1t is reasonable that
they should DO So because they must be taken to be
be construed with strictness.' And Will 1t be ser
0usly commended that q conviction OF one Oflence
viii justify sentence for different oiencef If 80,
then conviction or any one offence VIII justify q
sentence Tor any other offence; and conviction Of
petit larceny would warrant sentence for murder
Change or amendment of sentence can only be made
at the term at which it Is pronounced. fThe King
vs. Price CT al, East, 1872; King va, Justices or
Leic est! Maui se!wyn Az; ohtty's Gr
S74.; Stevens Vs. Com, 4 Metcalrs Mass. r., 800;
Wide va. Conn.,, Metcalf, 409.)
District Attorney Garvtn replied to the points
raised by counsel rciterating the arguments against
the release OF the prisoner previously advanced by
him. His Honor had the physical power to do this
thing, but he mad not the legal power. It was q
thing he ought not to do II the doctrine were once
70 be established that man could be taken from
State Prison alter the final Judgment OF competent
court the administration OF justice would sustain ir
reparaDle Injury.
Judge Barnard said that in the exercise OF the
In 1ns1rrn
Court he had deemed the case proper one In which
to issue writ Of haDeas corpus His decision would
be rendered the day afeer tomorrow tFridayL and
meanwhile the prisoner was TO be detained il GUS
tody.