New-York tribune., 1870-10-31
THE ALLEN CAsE-MO1ION TO DISCHARGE ON
BAIIl-THE DECISION RESERVED.

THE ALLEN CAsE-MOIIoN TO DISCHARGE ON
BAIIl-THE DECISION RESERVED
The return to the writ of habeas corpus and
oertorsr in the OF Theodore Allen was made on
Saturday at 1Ot m before Judge Cardozo, who granted
it, and who on the hearing sitting at Chambers
The prisoner was represented by exJudge stuart ana
MIR. Sedgwick, and Cot Fellows appeared for the people
Allen present In charge Of the Deputy Sheriff, and
the was uncomfortably crowded with the friends
OF the TammaDy party assembled to witness Aliens
humiliation.
Mr.. sedgwick opened the notion and argued that to
authorize the commitment OF the prisoner the prosec
ton was bound TO show afirmatively that Allen had
committed wifu and corrupt perjury. a. designated
in tho satute-nO that, through mistake OF fact or
ignorance Of the law, no had taken such oath. He
(Mr Sedgwick) would maintain that, IN taking the OATH
either legally morally guilty. To prove his guilt,
the prosecution had introduced among other testimony
presented before the committing magistrate, the fact
that five six occasions previously he had taken
similar oath under similar circumstances in relation to
the property This, far from being evidence OF
his guilt In this instance, was strong circumstances
tending to show his innocence tor the impro1- pdl
he took such oath that he believed it to he false.
He would maintain that the prosecution gave no 9yl M
Honor would perceive by the return OF the writ 9l e
The first evidence was the Testimony or Giennoh
who made the complaint, and who testified to having
searched the records or raher had searched me haeH
time OF the complaint that the lat OF August 1851
he found deed Of conveyance OF the property on the
northwest corner OF Prince and Mercerss. from one
Meyers and his wife tO Peter w. Langley, and that from
that day forward no conveyance wac on record 10 Ahe
Charles G0dey, clerk Of Justice Cox. testified To the
search having made with his assistance and under
his direction and they also produced search signed By
nobody, with a return thereon signed by Mr.. savage,
Deputy Register showing that no cOnyeyances had been
found vesng the property In Allen subsequent 10 that
date Now, taking all this testimony tOgether-and ths
Is all that given except the bond by Iangey-What
does IL amount TO The whole OF IL Is secondary ana
properly should have been excluded In conformity Win
objections behalf Of the prisoner.
The search produced with the signature or the Deputy
Register equally inadmssibe. That search was un-
signed by the person making II, and Mr. savage the
Deputy Re gser who placed on the stand although
he testified TO having signed II, yet admitted that he
knew nothing of ts contents for Mr. Egbert and not be-
had made search OF which he, Mr. Savage, had made
the formal certificate To have made even this evidence
admissible, Mr. Egbert should have been placed upon
the stand Then again, even admitting the testimony OF
this deed 10 have been properly aud legally adnntJe
aud admitting that such deed existed there IL no evil
dence tO connect IL with No. 90 Princost ~ II Ia SIMPLY
described the north ~ Prince and Mercer
The whole testimony Mr.. Sedgwck contended, was IN
admissible, and cOncedng its admssiby, IL Jailed
TO show against the prisoner authorizing his COM
mtnent, much less a refusal to admit him 10 bail.
Assistant District Attorney Fellows followed for the
prosecution said that the four walls OF prison are
the only proper suretes for such persons "a Allen Mr.
Scdgwck replied disputing propositions OF Law ddown
by the Assistant DistrCtAtOrney, after which Judge
Cardozo said he would take the papers and give has de-
clsOn at an early day.