New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-05-27

Exhi b.,
ment to 80 days Tue effect Of substituting sha"Ks of
o p;uena popt OF law ON which his counsel relied 10
obtain his discharge. At the time nv na never held
Sssnhs under Il for An hour or minute Mr. Br'toa
knew that Mr. shanks had not eeep nt Iban Eek.
hibt l. as will appear by the following extract '
@s ss spa ss sP county a, ,hf ' "
4s sdG S9r G a detained under that order
csn%tSeIi he rss b.uga over TO EswY0rs A.
Ce'H a not ,ou know after brought over here seseIn
G return iss he eG Is 5sas .ss 2iSJ
NJ BrItton must have known that tue Snern on sne
day his return to the 80 me habeas corpus ad
fesf dcGndunn: that he held ShanRs IN CUSTOM 9.a
Commitment A. Fols. CT and 1921 Both returns Oh tne
s6er,G relate TO the same imprisonment 70 inc same
time and TO the same person ana are daeu tue sae &
duced as a part of his return 10 the habeas corpus
allowed by Judge Fancher he would nave exposed nun
self to the penay prescribed by law for making false
return These two returns by the Sheriff,
had nc responsible for themone ayerrlng IN sno
stance that he held Shanks under commitment A, aud
the other that he held him under commitment B-wouiu
have convicted him tthe sheriff. OF gross fraud. u,
soou appeared, upon the testimony OF Sheriff Williams
6ms IIt ne psrt of hs return that he signed
the return intending to have the commitment marked
Sheriff wiiams knew heard Of any other COM
mtment See testimony of Sheriff Williams, fois lO3 TO
I'LL At the time Sheriff Williams signed the return 70
the habeas corpus allowed by Judge Fancher, Mr. Brit
ton had in his hand commitment b, but did show
its existence tseo testimony OF Mr. Britton fols
22 to 22S and 23s Tals attempt at imposing nPOh
I is not d icult TO perceive what the intention OF
Mr. Brtton The attempts ey the 9t e ~
shanks did not succeed Judge ancher was not 50 easily
imposed upon. The animus OF Mr.. Brton was unmls
takeable Before the Sheriff had taken the stand as
witness the counsel for Shanks said
to the Sherd retun without the Sheriff
SSu he s ,e re sps en sner
men here and public officer Of the Cont be here TO Waac
in reply Mr. Britton said: "The imputations OF the
counsel were unseemly aud improper Uol. 100. lew
minutes afterward the Sheriff swoIn witness,
and proved the facts stated by Shankss counsel Win
what intent Mr. Brton acted in classifying the Sherhs
return a.matter of no small importance Upon tGis
dence taken before Judge Fanchor, will be likely TO
have decided opinion. The Revised Statutes, 5th edi-
tim, y. $50, Section 25. provide as follows: An .,
sEe 70 L'S R on TgG WITH intent to o fas S ny
egr 6aaa Of any court SHALL upon CONVICTION be
HID Judge Fineher wnlle folding Special Term.
allowed the writ OF habeas corpus ana made return
able the SPECIAL Term of the supreme Court this sta
tutory provision would have been applcabe 10 tne
case ii MIR. Britton, with intent TO deiraud' had
flashed the return OF sheriff Williams in the
particulars specified Judge Fducber however, was
stngat Chambers when he allowed the writ ana made
1T returnaDe before him at Cnamhcrs instead OF the
Special Term For this the section OF the statute
above quoted does apply The following statutory
49, kyeI who with intent qre or ier,ud sha
alter any instrument or Whiting being or uTpoiIns TO be - -
! officer = BY wlich +. = any person msy
BE- affected bound o, soy way Te If bis pfr,Sn OF % gpn
The return OF sheriff Williams was wiring"
"purporting he" certificate" by an Officer" II
under the commitment which limited the of i'm
priSonment TO thirty days upon obtaining permission
fro the Sheriff to TO his return the proper commit
ment substituted in its place. without the authority OF
the Sheriff either direct or implied totally dlitrent
imuTe or defroud; Mr. slanks lin his person or prop
| prX her ease of
this section of the Revised Statutes. Ii Mr.. BrtOn
Intentionally and deliberately annexed to the return
the wrong commitment, there can he no doubt on the
evidence that mis- motive to inlure" Mr.. shanks,
in the Language of the statute n his person. :" IN other
words, to cause TO be iucarcerateu in tho common
jail of the County of Kings and III that way restrained
| OF his liberty. The commitment known as Exhibit Is
was never authorized by the Kings County oyer and
| Tcrmpcr. Mr.. Britton testified mat this paper was
signed by Judge Gilbert on the 22i of OCTOBER after tie
Court Of over aud Tenner had adjourned and the side
justices had gone GOs 10 2l2). Mr. BrtOn the
side justices signed EXHIBIT r. of the next
Terminer had at no time adjudScd that Shanks should DE
had through the form of couvicng shank for
tempt the Judgment OF the Court had been embodied
IN what the Revised Statutes call the order or warrant
of commitment" The record of conviction was made
up by Mr. Britton himself the evening of the 22 of
Otober shanks having then Deen IN jan under commit
neut SINCE IL or O'Clock OF That day. aud on the
side justices the request OF Mr. Brtion o 2l3 aud
2lD. This record Of conviction Is In harmony win the
The record OF conviction showed that the Court had
rendered decision or Judgment Limiting the imprson
ment 80 days This vital point 10 was of the
very essence Of the Judgment Although in parts
Dir. Brittons testimony Is extremely evasiye. on This
| point IT explicit. He testified as follows:
continuing exceed thirty dayi A. No. Sir tlere
MI Bfittcn testified that he filed the record OF convic-
ton at about ten minutes after 10 ON the morning of
the 23d Of October DOL 2 When the record of couvc-
ton signed and hled. the proceedings before the
! Kiags County oyer ana Terniner were ended. That
Court had nothing more 10 dO-and could do no IN
the caseeXcept In the event of certiorari the Su
preme Court 10 make proper return to the writ TAe
Kings County over and Ierminer, as court, never
had anything to DO with commitment Is, limiting
the term Of Imprisonment to thirty days. That com
| mitInent was never in any way before the Kings
County over ana Termner. IL was signed out OF court.
The judgment embodied in this commitment was
the oyer aud Terminer never rendered. Whatever
power the Court possessed when III session 10 amend,
modify or its order judgment. clearly
the members OF the Court, when the Court not in
session. had no power to amend or modify the Judgment
rendered by the Court while in session; they certainly
| had no power 10 render an entirely different indg-
ton knew that the Court had rendered no judgment
or decision that Snanks should be imprisoned Tor
conviction; he filed 1T and this record shows that the
Court made such decision. What Interior designs
Mr.. Britton had in view in obtaining the signature OF
the judges to commitment H. may he inferred from CIR
, TINS commitment was slSne4 me same
than hour ar Brton filed the record OF conviction
the hearing on the habcas corpus proceedings before
Judge Tancner had commenced. Tbis Judge Fancher
found as matter OF fact (see opinion fol- 3O9) Mr..
BrttOn testified that he left this paper at the
sherih's office on the morning OF the sd. judge
Fancher found that Mr.. Britton's evidence in this
respect not true; and that the evidence OF the
sherifs deputies, who testified that the paper not
lett with the Sheriff until the afternoon OF that day be-
tween and o'clock, was true. Mr.. Biitton in his
evidence sought TO make IL appear that, the time he
produced before Judge Fancher commitment Il. with
the sherfs return he did not know that claimed
that commitment A void because the ImprlsODmcnt
indefinite aud unlimited That this point
raised by Shankss counsel matter OF nOtOriety in
New-York and Brooklyn the afternoon OF the 23i
IL was stated in the evening papers of both cities
1t is not very probable that Nj. Britton would shut
his ears to Information OF this kind, which
slDle to the whole public. Mr.. Britton admitted that
on the morning OF the oath. at o'clock IAN hour
l,ufor Z herin