The New York herald., 1873-10-25
THE sHANKS HABEAS CORPUS.

Another Long Talk on Legal Technicali-
ties and Nothing Accomplished-Fur-
thcr Argument Set Down for This
Morning.
The interest felt in the Shanks habeas corpus
case was shown in the large crowd in attendance
yesterday morning in Supreme Court, Chambers.
For some time, in fact, before Judge Fancher made
his appearance on the Bench the room was packed
full, and as on the day previous made up quite
largely OF newspaper men Accompanying MIR.
Shanks were his counsel, Messrs. H. L. Clinton G.
A. Runkle and ex-Judge Dttenhoefer. Mr.. Lyon,
the Assistant District Attorney Of this city, was
reinforced by District Attorney Brtton, OF Brook
lyn.
SURPRISE FOR THE sHANKs LAWYERS.
Mr.. Lyon said that without waving the ques-
tion Of Jurisdiction areadv raised, he desired to
present the written return OF the Sheriff in place
OF the verbal one made the day previous The
court would observe that they now returned what
appeared to be different commitment Through
inadvcrtence the order instead OF the commitment
had been first returned. Since then they had been
furnished with copy OF the commitment under
which Mr.. Shanks was held.
Mr.. Clinton insisted that the oral return made
the day before was conclusive and could not be
amended.
Mr.. Lyon procured the return and the committal.
The former was the oral return, long drawn out but
essentially reciting facts. The latter docu.
ment was nearly counterpart OF that published
IN yesterdays HERALD except instead OF making
the term or imprisonment to continue TIL he
should resume the question, 1t specified the i'm
prs0nment as mot exceeding thirty days or until
he be discharged according to law"
Mr.. Clinton said that he was greatly surprised at
the production OF these substituted documents,
and he insisted that they were not admissible,
He claimed that when the Court adjourned the
day previous the counsel, without a shadow OF
right, took away the return which belonged to the
d ne Of
They held the Sheriff to tnat retHrn, and objected
to the reception OF any other return. Writs OF
habeaa corpus were or most sacred character and
were not be tampered with in any such way.
Mr.. Brtton pronounced the speech OF Mr. Cln-
ton as buncombe for the newspapers. The only
fault was that he abored under a total msappre
hensi0n Of the facts and had been led away by the
heat OF his Imagination. He was surprised that he
could not see the difference between an order of
commitment and commitment. He insisted that
the commitment that had been read was the COM
mitment. and not the order OF commitment, upon
the basis OF which the counsel had Illuminated his
philpics At the conclusion OF his speech he moved
Mr.. ShanSs be recommitted to the custody of the
Sheriff OF Kings county.
mt. Clinton objected and moved an adjournment
until tomorrow, In the meantime the custody Of
the prisoner to continue the same as yesterday.
The Court was assured OF It's power TO place the
Mr.. Clinton remarked that to drag Mr.. Shanks to
che Kings County Jail would be harsh and cruel in
the fullest degree Mr.. shanks VIII appear when
wanted and all the power OF the District Attorney
lBrttonl cannot keep him from appearing. Mr.:
nom sick bed to attend upon the Kings County
Grand Jury. The District Attorney Knew Of the
prisoners illness, and, having everything all
ready, sprung his trap upon the unsuspectlng man.
III the District Attorney would ferret out thieves
as perseveringly as he has followed up Mr.. Shanks
Brooklyn would be the irecst city from crime in the
world.
Mr. Britton said he thought that he was in court
Of justice and not hall Tor buncombe. lie would
deny that any oppression mad been exercised
towards Mr.. Shanks. That the Tribune had pub
lished serious charges against prominent man
and Judge, and IL was incumbent upon him as
prosecuting attorney for the county to investigate
the charges. and. II found true, to prosecute the
parties accused.
the Court here called the gentleman to order,
with request to connne himself to the question
in dispute.
Mr.. Brtton objected 70 an adjournment. This
was not a civil case, but one for open contempt OF
court, which is purely criminal. Statutes were
cited which says that when prisoner y produced
upon writ OF habeas corpus ad testihcandum ne
shall be Immediately remAnded to custody at the
conclusion or his evidence.
Judge Fanchcr thought that he had no right TO
listen TO this writ; but as the prisoner was sick,
and being man OF standing he thought 1t right TO
let bin go on his own recognizancc. Much argu-
ment between counsel ensued. when the Court set