New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-07-10
THE FOSTER CASE.

JUDGE PRATTS ORDER ILLEGAL-THE LAW IN
THE CASE.
To me Edftor Of The Tribune.
SIR: Considerable doubt has been expressed
by many persons my hearing, since Judge Pratts al
lOwance of u writ Of error in Fosters case fTst:
Whether Judge out Of this county has the power to
allow writ in any case, after the judges in this
county have been applied to and have refused to grant
such writ and Second; Whether Judge Pratt or any
other judge, lawfully grant writ Of error in this
particular case.
I'm the first place It is an acknowledged principle that
all crimes are matters Of county jurisdiction" II
man commits a murder in Westchester County and is
there arrested Westchester County grand jury ndcts
him, a Jury drawn from the citizens Of Westchester
County tries him. and Westminster County Judges with
Judge Of the Supreme Court VINO is elected in West
chester County preside at the Court Of oyer and Ter
miner which he is tried. II is granted that the
Supreme Court Court having jurisdiction throughout
the state but does not tend 10 weaken the respect for
decisions " the decisions of the judges In this County
are be sub ccted the scrutiny Of the hrtyhree
Supreme Court judges throughout the State OF higher
Jurisdiction There has never my knowledge. been any
decision touching this point hut seems TO me that public
policy demands that such the present should be
confined the county where the crime is committed. In
this county there five Supreme Court Judges If, on
application to each of them, the prisoner is refused
writ Of their decision ought 10 he respected Judge
stuart has commenced practice never before resorted
10, and which is likely, If allowed TO on, To be detri
mental to the administration Of justice. Judge Stuart in
his argument, said that writ OF error had "neyer been
refusedncver never, never" III in the recOllcc
tOn OF every Cthe Reynolds easel application
made 10 Judge IngTaham for writ OF error, which was
refused There is like still more rccentlythat of
Thomas There have been Of like cases. After
the writ has been refused in the referred
to- no application been made any other
Judge" never, never never
ON the second point. Has any Judge, in this partc-
ular case any right TO grant writ Of error Judge
Stuart In his short argument before Judge Pratt SAYS
THE conviction not justified by the evidence in the
Neither the evidence nor the facts establish the
crime of murder III the first degree" IL Is acknOwl
edged and we'll known principle Of both civil and Grim
lnal law that after the facts tried and decided
by jury they never be que STONED by appellate
ttons OF law. The In this decided Foster
premeditated the killing OF Mr.. That decision
cannot be reviewed.
writ 81 error canpot be granted when the questions
raised by the prisoners counsel have before been
thoritatively decided In his opinion Judge CardozO
shows the ialaCy of each and every Of the grounds
relied on by the prisoner, and cites cases directly III
point which have before decided the question. Unless
there is reasonable doubt the questions presented
by the prisoner the Judge must dsaow the writ Of er
r0r People AIT. Wood Park, Cr 68l). Nor can writ
of error be allowed on frivolous questions where there
e. irregularities affecting jury Ferris agt People, 81
granting writ has insued justice, tho people and
Judge CardOzo at one and the same time. VI.
Nec York, July g. 1871.