The Republican journal., 1870-06-23
THE LIMERICK BANK ROBBERS.
Application for Reduction Of Bail Refused

THE LIMERICK BANK ROBBERS.
Application for Reduction Of Bail Refused.
Last week application was made to Associate
Justice Dickerson, Of the Supreme Court, in this
city, for writ of habeas corpus in the case Of
Langdon w. Moore, held in custody on the charge
of robbing the LIMERICK Bank. The writ was
granted, and hearing took place in this city on
Monday, on complaint of the prisoner that he was
Illegally restrained of his liberty by demand for
excessive bail. The prisoner was brought before
Judge Dickerson, in the Court Room, at about 10
O'Clock A. NJ, with his counsel D. N. Mortland, Esq.
of Rockland, and N. Abbott Esq. of Belfast. The
State was represented by County Attorney Rice,
Of Knox Co., who was accompanied by Sheriff
Grose, John T. Berry, Esq, President of the Bank,
and j. f. Merrill Esq. Cashier.
After the petition and writ had been read, Mr..
Rice said it his duty to resist the application.
for the reason that there was no authority given
the Supreme Court to reduce bail in such cases.
Chap. 1885, Sec IA. and chap 90, Sec. "a, authorize
any Justice of the Supreme Court or any two JUS
tees of the Peace to admit to bail any person con
fined for balable offence. or for not finding secur-
tiles in a recognizancc-but it does not appear that
the superior court can revise or reduce bail, but
only admit'to bail. The only eases in which the
court reduce the bail, is civil cases, where the
caprice of the plaintiffs writ is the only of
damage. The right of the accused to speedy and
impartial trial is secured, and bail once fixed by
competent authority cannot be reduced.
Mr.. Abbott replied that he was not expecting to
meet this question. The constitutions both of this
State and United States provide that excessive bail
shall not be required, and legislation had been pro-
vided to that end. Itwoud be strange if the Legis-
lature had failed to provide that the Supreme
Court could revise proceedings of inferior courts in
the matter of bail. The language of the statute,
enquire into the case, and admit to bail" was sut-
fcient to grant all that was asked. He cited the
statute of 1SGl-
Sec l. When person is confined Jail for bailable
offence, or for not finding securities on recognzance
duced by two justices of the peace and quorum if the
Supreme Court be in session in the County justice
of such Court is resident the place where the prisoner
is confined.
In forbdlng two justices of the peace to reduce
bail when convenient TO the court, it is clear that
the right was believed to exist in the Supreme
Court.
Judge Dickerson, after discussing very fully the
merits of the case, decided that the Court had a,-
hority TO reduce bail in cases where it was found
W Dc cAtCSSiNt, anu llt WOull
bearing on this particular case.
Counsel for prisoner offered to show, by the
docket of this court and the testimony of the Clerk
that persons charged with offences liable to heavier
penalties than the prisoner, had been bailed for
sums far less in amount - not more than one
twenty ffth part. The Court excluded the evi-
dencc.
Upon the question Of the reduction of bail itself.
Mr.. Rice said that it is believed that the prisoner
has himself the ability to respond in the sum de-
manded. No evidence is offered to the contrary
And besides the case is IN aggravated one The
prisoners residence is in New York. he is a pro
fcssiona burglar; he came here for purposes of
robbery-a robbery that had once before been tried
but which lacked his skill to be successful There
was evidence in letters from detectives to show
his character. He has been engaged in other
matters of the kind in this State, and is wanted to
answer to them. The robbery was not committed
upon one man, but on all the stockholders of the
Bank. 1t was the depository of those of sma II As
well as large means. 1t is an offence against the
whole community. The Governor of the State de-
mands that they be held secure and punished.
This class should be made to feel that this is an
unhealthy field for their operations.
Mr.. Abbott said that all the property taken had
been returned, that there was no proof that his
client was man of property, or that he was Il pro-
essiona thief. He claimed that the bail asked was
excessive, and excessive meant "beyond the COM
mon measure or proportion" A ease of breaking
and entering III the night time, with intent to com
NIT crime, had been bailed in this court At $1,000
when the penalty is imprisonment for life 4 ease
of coun'crcitng. with the same penalty, had been
bailed at not $1,000. The same is true of as
Sault and stabbn% with intent to kill, also on the
docket of this court. For the offence that Moore is
charged with, a penalty of fifteen years imprson-
mcnt is provided. When for offences of so much
more magnitude only $1,000 bail is asked, isn't his
bail, at twenty-five times as much, excessive?
Judge Dickerson said that the object of bail is to
secure the attendance of the accused. In humanity
the laws have substituted bail for imprisonment,
and bail is not excessive which secures attendance
The amount must vary from small to large sums
What would be excessive in one case, would not
be in another. The law graduates according to
circumstances-by wealth of individuals, position
of society, enormity of crime, &c. Bail may not be
| excessive because it is not TO be procured. The
accused should show some proof of inability His
oath is not conclusive that point. Other
offences may have been bailed at less proportion
able sums But the common measure of bail for
persons charged with robbng banks is not shown
to be less than this.
The Court pursued this line of reasoning at con-
siderable length, and stated its conclusions that a
case justifying reduction of bail demanded had
not been made ont, and ordered the prisoner to be
recommittcd to Jail.
The mutiled drums sad roll has beat,
The soldiers last tattoo;