The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-24
Stokes LAST PLANK.

Tho IrrcE ularitics Plea Ovcrrulcd-Argu.
ment OF Counsel tho Main Issue
Review Of the Rulings or Judges Car
'doso and acknowledgement to be
Resumed This Morning.
The Court OF General Term OF the Supreme Court
commenced yesterday morning. Judge lngraham
presiding, with Judges Brady and Davis. 1t was
known that the opinion of the Court would be rem
dered either for or adverse TO the motion Of pris-
soner's counsel made on the previous day, to In
clude in the further consideration OF the the
alleged Irregularities claimed by the prisoners
counsel In the Court OF Oyer and Terminer by the
General Term Of the Supreme Court and by the
Court Of Appeals. The demurrer to this was
ably argued by District Attorney Phelps who
in opposition moved to strike out the assign
ment In error and to vacate the rule requiring
the defendant in error to join issue on
those points. The irregularities claimed are the
absence OF the Judge and the prisoner during por-
lions of the trial, and subsequent inquiries made
by members OF the jury, who found Stokes guilty,
at the Grand Central Hotel, and at the gun shop
where Stokes had purchased the fatal pistol There
was large attendance OF spectators In Court, but
little Of the element which made the Court Of Oyer
and Terminer SO uncomfortable during the two
trials OF the prisoner Tor the murder was present.
Stokes father and brother were present. ON the
motion and argument o! the previous day Judge
Davis rendered the following
Motion on behalf OF the defendants In error to
strike from the files the assignment of errors and
TO vacate the rule requiring the defendants to join
Davis, 1.-The writ OF error in this case was sued
out under the provisions OF article second, part
FOUR chapter two, Of the Revised statutes entitled,
1sOf wrts OF error on Judgments and CertioTdrt IN
criminal cases,' e X. s., page 1897.
that mo assignment OF errors, or joinder in error,
shall oe necessary upon any writ OF error or Ger
sions; but the Court shall proceed on the return
thereto, and render Judgment In the record before
them" u Is manifest that this section was in,
tended to alter an existing practice In criminal
cases by thereafter rendering unnecessary an as
sgnment and loinder = error upon any writ Of
error or cprtOrarf prosecute under the provisions
it was only intended to effect the general
to errors in fact. But this point has been d.
rectiy adjudicated, against him in Hagan VS.. The
People, idcm 272, and we are Of the opinion that
these cases are authoritative expositlons Of the
law y urged tnat tney eaE O rs
The People Us N. ", 1881. The learned Judge by
whom the opinion was written IN the iast-named
case was the presiding Justice in the case Of
Hagan vs. the People, and concurred in the
opinion pronounced BY Justice ,welles; It is
Csnceni's case no allnsIon whatever Is made to
the decision OF Hagan's case, and bis expressions,
ance with the opinion in the latter case, shown
by himself not to be called for by the question In
case ne hsa tnat ~ fhe ma.ees
in fact and in legal eject, part OF the record IN the
supreme Court returned to the Court OF APP
peals,n "as much so as the Indictment or any
other part of the proceedings The Court below
had, BY special order, added those matters TO the
record. The Appellate Court held that "they must
be treated therefore II they were inserted In the
body Of the record, and be considered In connec-
ti0n with the rest OF the record In regard to the
errors which are alleged 1t seems quite clear,
therefore, that Cancemi's case did not involve any
question Of assignment OF errors in fact and
jondcr therein, nor the proper mode OF reaching
and reviewing errors wholly dehOrs the record, and
forming no part OF the return. All the questions
considered In the People vs. Allen, (643 N. Y. 32)
appeared In the bill OF exceptions and were them
selves distinct grounds OF exception. That case
can not be properly said TO have raised any ques
ton or practice under the statute passed upon In
BaQens VS.. The People. In the People VS.. Willis