New-York tribune., 1872-04-10
THE CORRUPT JUDGES.


These haheas
Justice Cardozo continuously since the beginning Oh ns
time 10 January, 1868 and he has had almost he en M
preme Court Before his term Mr.. Justice Barnard had
granted, In the same way discharges alter nni @0"
The decision in the Huber case applies only TO conyiS
tons had in the Special Sessions since taS &
Judge CardoZo had been granting these
S cS TcT Tf few Sxceptens these discharges been
granted foT the somewhat noted firm of Howe Il Hum
mel The method as follows petllon ior q w,o ,
Senvicoa for review before the General Term of the
Supreme Court The statute IN such case REQUIRES se .
90 abide the decision the hearing on the return 70 ne
wit. The prisoner would Ihen oe epOHg' or 1iga haR ~
and then be discharged Regularly then If Court ana
on for argument General Term and the verdict be
sfirmed or reversed. Mr. Howe testified that he had,
IN This way and out Of those 500 or only three
four had ever been heard on the return TO e WILL
with suretes, and were all found on me, .n1ugm .ne
nrances had been declared forfeited or the nrees
followed Latterly in the rper years OF the ISeuec,
recognzance the statute giving not even the color OF
legality such practice. And IN many cases ihe ols
charge absolute, without even this sheht pfei"l!
Mr. Justice Sutherland testified that he in former years
none these ever came up for argument at tn
fused 10 grant any OF them. The same was the case
wi;h Justices Ingraham and Clerke.
since January, 1870 Whether not the same process
thought would naturally have gone on in his mnH S Is
nn the poini was conspiracy with Messrs Howe &
r r to Of spdea sesaS a whether @ or not
evidence sustains the charge is matter for the
smS ASs CT ST"e'eV tRc ceGt Sea G OF aS Huber decision
pn this charge this alone needs be said Ihe @ Soutt o
Appeas have decided in the month OF Mare, Io thdt
those convictions since April. 1870, were void Ju1ge
TT Seedea @ Sq 'fG n ny nm% S n those
were legal. not void. Whether or not III Io'o s mnu
ls ne reVefsol was Of his own opinion to be
IN 1874 matter for reasoning Bnt II vipS re
ms @ Pre- Sc sbond have discharged persons
have eqqe9m m tat & ne a Of tbe same otcmses before
tho same Court. at the motion OF other counsel t,aa @
Hessrs Howe & Hummel which, however, Judge Car
EozO continually refused 10 do.
now TWO WOMEN WERE ILLEGALLY IMPRISONED
In clear contrast with the facility with which the con
ycts of Blackwes Island regained their liberty the
ease OF two women named Mary Pearsan and Joanna
o'Connor which also came before Justice Cardozo.
Against these two women no charge OF crime was ever
even made. They were taken from their house
OF night, carried to the Tombs, placed In
confinement there, under warrants lssuou
Nv Judge Cardozo, no complaint being MADE
AGAINST either of them and not witness ever 6ens eX
hmined or an affidavit being mage 70 snoW any
cifdnse by either Of them committed These women ay
~ ~ a IU Sr Pg eing lad against Them Finally lawyer OF
ins city retained by gentleman 10 appear ot lhe
He prciared afdavits which were sworn 10 by them and
rubntied 10 Judge Cardozo, demanding that they
be- discharged from imprisoniaeHt. Judge Cndoz2 then
addressed TO this lawyer the following words: 10 nOt
touch this case if you do you will displease me; if You
take this case yen need never expect any iaVoIs rom
me while an on the bench"
The counsel for these two women then applied TO two
corpus, and found that Judge CaIdozo had arranged
that the writ should be made returnaoe before him
Iborgi he not then holding Chambers. The writs
were then made returnebe before MIN on the next
day-the prisoners brought before him and their dis
before, that there was no charge against them
Judge Cardozo then refused TO hear or decide the
question and dOurned the hearing against the protest
al the prisoners counsel reinanded the prisoners TO the
Tomo where they remained in confinement for another
Two or before
they discharged, and they finally released
y e9ah as eGa GF as ss Re o1 Tl eR h
aidayitS In their favor as their counsel had pe-
suted 10 Judge CIdozo on the very first application to
bun.
yHE CONDOLENCES BETWEEN JUDGE CARDOzos AND
GRsTZ NATHAN's ACCOUNTS.
Many other were put in evidence These men
toned only specimens. The only portion of
iha evidence given in relation TO Judge CardozO which
viii lie further mentioned that relating the money
transactions with ~: Gratz Nathan.
Mr. Nathan was examined at sOme length in relation
70 his fees as referee and as counsel for receivers
where referee receiver had been appointed by
Jrdge Cardozo. He finally requested to allow
examination of his checkboos TO show any moneys paid
=. him TO- and received by him fTo6l i@.- .c.aoso
TVS he declined 10 DO MT Na;'a 20. men thar cE
IN all TO about $4,000 Several Of his eheekbocks had
disappeared altogether.
phy disappeared. The original checks themselves had
4
rnrned vouchers from his bank though he had drawn
many checks Mr.. Nathan kept no cashbook and as to
these checks amounting before mentone1, 70 about
TOOCO be could give infOJmaon, either as to whom
he paid them. for what he paid them, OF whence the
nontjs against which they drawn came t0 him.
with ihe ptOn Of single check Of $780, which he
testified lie drew il Dauk bills and used icr household
urarisQD Of the bank accounts Of Mr. Nathan and
Judge CardoZo az TO these same cheeks o1,whlch hI
Nathan could give no account, showed these points
IGty were ali paid at Mr. Nathans bank in bills Some
Of them were for very UNUSUAL ain0dnts-s1 Ol7 SO
go o s'2 20 s sSS az 40 o. 5o unIc s2.@t tSs3 %
were paid IN bills by Mr. Nathans bank or within
two days thereafter there was In each case deposit ~
exactly agreeing with the checks drawn One or two
tcO $50, would have shown nothing ana the pro-
tucton OF checkboOks accOuntbooks would have ex
llalned the whole matter. ..-- ,.
MT Nathan had testified that he had at times loaned
paid and repaid in bills for the that from the
e ,dole Ho eh were bis words be thought it improper
Judge CardOzOs name should appear ID ms c1ecK
book The improprety appeared TO he not so much In
tbe payqnt OF money as preserving the evidence of
the payment further examination ana comparison
lad passed from Judge Cardozo Mr. Nathan that no
checks Judge CardOzO had been paid IN bills when
Nj Nathan and all checks Of Judge Cardozo of any
considerable amount traced TO other banks than
account Judge Cardozo and Mr.. Nathan utterly failed
10 explain this marvellous identity or dates and uneven
amounts drawn IN bills from Mr Nathsns account ana
deposted in bills in Judge CardOzos account debit
On Mr Terence Farleys bank account of single item
Of 81 l6O which cOrTespOnded in date ana amount with
credit IN Judge Cardozos account deemed by Judge
CardOzo sufficiently important matter 70 require al
explanation, which explanation was made by calling
Nj. Farley witness Mr.. Nathan had already ad.
united that he could give no explanation whatever OF
these numerous items, amounting to $4,000, and Judge
CsTdOZO attempted none.
In the OF Judge Barnard. there has been series
of reCeYershps Of railroads and other corporations and
their property, some OF them being within this and
Others being not within the state or even brought within
spread alarm among business men and officers