The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-11
THE CAR HOOK MURDER.
Argument Before the Supreme Court, General
Term, Upon the Application Of William Eos.
ter for a New Trial-Points Urged
For and Against the Prisoner
Decision Of the Court Reserved.

Decision OF the Court Reserved
In the increasing cycle of exciting events that fol-
low in sure and swift succession the track OF the
whirligg OF time all recollection of the atrocous
car-hook MURDER the scenes ana incidents OF which
as published In the HERALD on the morning Of the
27th OF April last produced such startling effect
upon the community, are slowly passing from the
public memory. Justice. outraged and indignant at
such an atrocious homicide. sought speedy avenge-
ment Avery d. Putnam, the victim Of the
murderous assault. died three days later
In ST. Luke's Hospital. Coroners jury
declared that he came to his death through vio-
lence at the hands OF William Foster. Promptly
on the heels OF the Coroners inqulsiton the Grand
Jury found an Indictment for murder against Eos
ter. Upon this indictment he was speedily brought
TO trial IN the Court OF Oyer and Terminer, con-
vcted Of murder In the first degree and sentenced
to be hung on the 14.h Of July. The public ap-
proved the verdict, and justice seemed In fair way
OF being satisfied But instead OF Foster being
brought forth for execution on the day ap-
pointed, there came the interpositlon Of the
laws delays. Judge Pratt granted o stay
OF proceedings; Governor Holman granted
respite. In pursuance OF this judicial
order Foster was granted longer lease Of life. The
argument upon this stay Of proceed,ngs-the main
question to be decided being whether Foster is to
have new trial or not-was heard yesterday be-
fore the Supreme Court, General Term, Judges In
graham, Barnard and Brady on the bench.
REVIEW OF THE CASE
Mr.. Bartlett, OF the counsel for Foster, made
the opening speech on the latter's behalf he told
how Foster. on that unfortunate evening, mad.
dened into complete stupefaction by liquor,
got upon car OF the Broadway line
to ride mp town; now ne happened to
IN Onllf with Dnfu hon with
one blow OF the car hook. not knowing what he
did, he feled Putnam to tho ground. causing In
jures which resulted In the atter's death. He
urged that Judge Cardozo who tried him, was him.
self under q strong excitement from the recent
brutal murder OF near connection OF his; that
there was but one question before the jury, the de-
gree Of the OFFENCE and on that question the jury
were prejudiced by The Judges refusual to charge
that If the prisoner made the assault with
deadly weapon, with the intent to mann the de-
ceased but without any intent to effect death,
such killing is murder in the second degree. and
merely charged that II the jury found "sole intent
was to commit an assault ana battery upon de-
ceased the resulting death Is not more than man.
slaughter In the first degree" He argued that the
intent to break Mr.. Putnam's head was intent 10
away from the jury the right Of 80 finding, and
therefore finding murder in the second degree. He
the prisoner were not sufficient upon which TO base
Q conviction Of murder IN the first degree. He
ter or the prisoner. Xtogetner his remarks only
aimed 20 enlist the sympathies OF the court IN the
ARGUMENT OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY aARv1N.
succeeding the remarks OF the opening counsel
Mr. Garvln District Attorney, entered upon his argu
trial and In support Of his conviction in the Court
OF Oyer and Terminer. He referred first to the
his arrangement for trial and the demurrers inter.
posed as reolnders. Finishing up this preliminary
referred particularly to Foster coming In nom the
front platform OF the car ana attempting to take
seat by me side OF one OF the ladies' with Mr. Put.
seat opposite to them and began to jeer at
Putnam; how the latter took no notice OF this;
up. and receiving no response TO this question: got
up from his seat, and in an lnlurated manner sald,
leave this car FIJI give You he'll h Closing losing aiu
10 the facts OF the further quoting the
| words Of Foster, II laid him out l am the man.
| VINO wants meqn He entered upon the pOints Of
his argument HIS first, point was that this
was case OF premeditated murder and from this
he urged that the plan threats, means used nstru-
| ment used, stealthy manner, all Indicate design
and intention 10 xiii ana murder; his second point
was that the form OF the Indictment has been held
SUFFICIENT TO sustain an Indictment for murder In
the nrst degrees the third point that the Court was
properly constituted; the fourth point, that chal
lenge TO array Tor principal cause Is without sub
stance; the nth point, that the attachment for
jurors IS matter OF discretion, that no juror was
away by design OF his own or that Of the prOsecu-
0D, and that courts cannot wait tor absent Jurors;
Delovegn, Juror, Is without foundation upon his
own challenge; no specification was made Of the
cause or to the favor; not a WORD SAID
about triers; the Juror was rejected; he
on own IN S seventh
point, that McSwiggan was properly excluded; the
eighth point, that The wife OF the prisoner, Jane
Foster, called by prisoner, was properly excluded;
his ninth point mad reference to requests to charges
his tenth point was that 1t is never necessary to
submit questions to jury when there Is no evi-
dence to support 1t, and that 1t would have been
improper to charge with no evidence to support it:
the eleventh point mad reference to the charge in
tOxlcation and insisted that the charge was clearly
right; hts twelfth point was that in all cases the re-
view should De confined to questions OF law arising
upon EXCEPTIONS taken upon the trial, and errors
appearing upon the record; his thirteenth point,
errors could not have aested ne RESULT pSsre
ought not to be q new trial, and his fourteenth
point, that the Judgment should be affirmed
ARGUMENT FOR THE PRISONER.
Ex.Judge Porter made the concluding argument
for the prisoner He also recited the facts from his
Fosters previous good character insisting that the
TACT was proved and undisputed that, down to this
character, and that he had been from b0yhood an
INDUSTRIOUS orderly and peaceable citizen. He also
trial, which the defendant does i not waiVe but he
proposed to discuss only the questions arising upon
the refusal Of, Of the Court to submit to the the
second degree. His first point was mat the single
question involved ls, as to the degree OF murder 10
which the offence belonged, and the error OF the
Judge, IN refusing 70 submit TO the jury the issue
| whether the prisoner was guilty Of murder In the
second degree. His second point that the Judge
properly charged that, under the indictment, the
jury could lawfully convict the accused either OF
murder In the first degree, or murder In the second
degree or OF mansaughter; and 1t was, therefore,
plainly erroneous to refuse to instruct them to
the conclusions OF fact deducbe from the evidence.
which would warrant conviction OF homicide, in
the Indictment. HIS third point, that the Jury
| was thus instructed as matter of law-and as
he submitted erroneously-that though the
defendant used q dangerous implement, they had
no alternative upon the evidence but to impute to
him premeditated purpose OF death or to exoner-
ate HIM from any intent beyond that OF an ordinary
assault and battery-an everyday misdemeanor;
and his fourth point, that there was evidence which
would authorize the jury find that the defendant
made a felonious assault upon Putnam, intending
! 10 INIT IN unurdo or