New-York tribune., 1871-11-29
THE COURTS.
THE VOUCHER ROBBERY
JUDGE BEDFORD DENIES THE Morfou TN o,,.
INnIcyrMrNr. .......... - HN,I

JUDGE BEDFORD DENIES THE MOTION rO orAsu
TIE INDICrMENTs-HE REFUSES TO ADMIT
THE ACCUSED TO BAIL.
Judge Bedford delivered the FOLLOWING in,
portant decision In the Court Of General Sc, .on- y.,
day. IN the case Of the alleged voucher tldcy.cs.
The Grand July have found two Indictment, ,,,,,.,
Haggerty and Baulch, one for alleged hury,ry an
the other for an alleged larceny The Irisoners ,6romh
their counsel now a,k th. fonrt to gaa. tDxn n" m
they be- baed Tte nAtion Qmash Ia ba..d mail, ,.
upon the ground that there was not sufficient cvdcn",
before the Grand Jury 10 warrant their finding a ,rns
biz 1t l. we'll settled thai Grand Jury a,r ouIv =,
hear evidence behalf OF the utoD and that th
qmrv or accusation which is afirrwaid tried ns
determined by petit jury aud the Grand jury ars
oon to call upon the party to asswcrit II also
laid down by high authority that IL Grand Jury ought
mcnt 50 far as their evidence goes .,tisnos
with probablitie,-a doctrine that might to a
Piled to very oppressive Purpoaes" AgT'in. 1t wrIl
settled that unless Grand Jury are as wei satisfied of
the quit of the accused, Against whom they prefer
r ca!ied upon atcrwari petit Jurors upon the ,anu
evidence to convict they onght TO ds'nIs, The tlll
For the purpose Of this motion hold that the cred,
bny Of wirnr.s'- the suiiciency and nsufclcncy Of
their testimony. ARE question. peculiarly AMI solely
within the province Of Grand Jury And hold that II
Grand Jury. after seeing the witnesses and hearing
their testimony, iecl thoroughly persaded the trnt
of the charge tar their testimony gOe. and Ina,
their convictions are not based upon remote probab
ties they are hound under their Osths TO indiet After
Indictment found, II becoine. the duty Of the District
Attorney TO try thu prisoners before petit Jury where
the first time the legal procccdii.- against them
III" great question of gt or Innocence Is to bs Dquirea
into.
In the present case. nnqueotiouaby. testimony WA
prr,cnel to the G.and Jury, AID upon tia, testimony
ihry III TO h.ld true bill, thus asserting we
as Gr9pd JurgE T. this f.nsy' 'l that s IN. 't%cn
charge Thi. The Grand Jury had prre right TO DO.
and ., ing done he Court should not interfere with
their acon. Tho other grounds upon w,ich counsel
bases his motion do not think well TAX. aud 'uer
fore, the uivtlVu 10 qutsli Is dciicd
TuL MOTION TO DAii.
The PRISONERS on being stcd a., nlrd tlcn,e.ve. %
their statutory pny;legea preliminary examination
The Investigation was most thorougL-'he prisoner
were indeed ably defended. and the people were repre-
sented by the Dstret-Attorney in person Judge Dow
ling. the magistrate before whom the investigation
had after listening all the testimony and having the
opportunity OF seeing well hearing the witnesses
saw III commit the prisoners without ball. thereby
asserting to this coinm'uy that he, under hli onita
OATH found from the testimony before him. first that
crime had been committed and. srr"Ddly that there
probable cause to hold Tho ml.oner. Following The
action Of the magistrate. the Grand Jury have found
Indictment and the pr Soners. through their counse,
now AK TN, Court +" n hsm Listened WIN deep I".9
while conccde his effort in behalf OF his clients to bc
differ from the magistrate who, after preliminary
animation. committed the prisoners without bail
sound and and honest discretion OF the court And my
opinion every judge vested with this power Should
Ted It ancs Of ns ns ban in mind that
while justice Ia done the State. no injustice should bo
done the accused SO ia m4S v%S cIe I'M it. asss
has sulcd the fair fame of this great city. ontrseing
society and making. II were every citizen stand agast
h astOnishment-is alleged Ia haze been prpctttrt
The prisoners arrested aud now stand indicted for
that crime
n me, considering all the circumstances and
surroundings Of this cas+ tO bai the prisoners
and thus lOOsen In the slightest MANNER The iron grasp
Of the law would not only prove rccreant O official
oath. but would indeed be rlng with the sacred rights
of society and the stern demands OF justice Tho motion
is therefore denied. And yet. while have denied tn"
motion TO admit tn bail for the reasons stated am ir:e
that these prisoners have constitutional right u
speedy trial, and should therefore unluestionably be
tried at the earliest possible day for. in my opinion
longer delay in this will not only work severe
hardship PRISONERS but In NO way rs far as
can conceive, lurtEer the ends OF justice.