The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-31
Bur us Well MS Bench Reform.

aullcted periodically with fits of establishment
at the freedom with which distinguished
counsel" in New York are allowed to ex-
pound criminal defences and dilatory motions
upon indictments. AS Hamlet cried to the
players, so the judges should say to the
dramatic counsel, 'Reform it altogether.
Certainly one vainly looks into elementary
books or published decisions for any authority
or precedent which warrants the attacking of
an indictment for any cause except some
legal one apparent upon its face, or
In any part Of the record then before
the Court. Nevertheless an entire day
was recently consumed in an important
case in allowing distinguished counsel"
to vilify coroner and the respectable citi-
zens who sat upon his jury, as well as indi-
vidual grand jurors and witnesses, so as to fur
nish reasons why their client should not be
arraisned for trial upon simple charge of
maliciously shooting another man. 1t was
not claimed that the charge was illegally
framed or did not meet, what the client has
already admitted the allegation of killiny.
Nor was it disputed that even if all the
jurors had been the clients friends they or
The District Attorney could or would have
arraigned the prisoner upon any differ
emily framed Indictment. Common sense
would, therefore, decide that in no aspect
could the accused have been prejudiced
by pleading at once and getting in his defence
as speedily as possible. Particularly so when
It Is cardinal rule of law that before the
Grand Jury no defence evidence is permissi-
BILE. An indi ctment is simply charge that
there is probable cause to try man before a
Jury for the specific offence that it AYERS.
The plain reason for this dramatic endeavor
to quasi an indictment upon asseverations of
prejudice in the rooms of Coroner or
Grand Jurors undoubtedly is to afford pretext
for counsel to manufacture a sympathy for
their client or perplex the minds of citizens
who may shortly be called upon as jurors to
swear whether or not they have opinions or
impressions about the case. In one breath
distinguished counsel" are given to abuse
the press for giving irrelevances as items of
news about their client, when in another breath
they plunge the Bench into worse irrele-
vances until the Judge is compelled to call
them to order. Yet more inconsistency
remains behind. distinguished counsel" in
the Sessions abuse the Grand Jury there
assembled for finding an Indictment against
one set of clients, when the Oyer Grand Jury
was the correct one to consider il. And then
they make the point for another set in the
latter Court that it also is incompetent
to originate an Indictment which is
very like the tactics of the late Tombs counsel,
5sHold-over Shaler," who once acquitted
client on a charge of stealing before one jury
because he had received stolen goods, and
then acquitted him before another jury on the
latter charge because the client had COM
mtted theft; all of which was very ingenious,
but not particularly credtaole to lawyers, who
are supposed to be under oaths Of Office to do
their duty honorably and not deceive courts
or juries.
The Bench must learn to apply sharp rene
dies to counsel, however distinguished.
Courtesy is virtue in judge, but frmness
and pluck are better virtues, and often best
serve the cause of justice. A recent English
reviewer has charged that the Bench in
America Is too apt to be overawed by the Bar
The accusation is not without force, especially
as often applied to this city. True, it is diff
cult to curb persistent bully who wears the
wig and gown of the barrister; but the judges
have done it in England time and again; con-
sequently in Great Britain witnesses are not
afraid of giving information lest they be brow
beaten, nor jurors found unwilling to serve
when they discover that facts and not fancies,
evidence and not rasping rhetoric. are the
matters with which they squarey deal. And
while the Bar Association is engaged in puri-
flying the Bench it may well spare few hours
In improving the code of manners of many of
Its members toward jurymen, judges, and
especially private parties who are not con-
nected with pending proceedings in Court.