, 1874-10-20

which no civil court on earh would tolerate for
FOR WHOM sEw rnfA,s ARE ALLOWED.
Dat TINT II tnay ho tnado clear hayol all Ittcstior
70 Book e ni.eIfline, Vhsr: X, now !s.tmony.
tnpor.aMs 70 the to npa.toH % ht aesst It i proper
rs" he ne1t t t.eon eli nd do:!asos s. JUL o.noSs
II sometime discoT sred during "thc prosecution ot
T, I'm + a' :. II
nu other thnn condemned party, and that, Al con
;n paf sao; sS aSsy' :y gss;
which may tend to lin " "cxcuiratou."
hut thts Il not an 90 1eaoi,s tt Tho law 10 protect
tionaiiy voi.tod, tint Il ii oarsfu to provls for tho
apcedioa and fullest reparaon possible see It, Of
o .a,no charter c1a5as taat III very serious injury
oharc3, BY liz deity Which new 1ii triai would ,,'s &C.
easlon" thsn tns sl,eros tnestosy Insy ttselt. In
decide the In ts'' light Of tic newly discovered
testimony IL both lilo appelant and tho court
III take caro- to provide speedy rei:r for nn injarc
party; snl It does for tho Individuals own sake,
and for s sko e s Ghsrrn o
than tls OWL law. THAT - equally just III offering
to Ss ay sood ior doug So Hu i syss "1a no
suGh i,,. opportunity 10 o. o Esosesntgr. so;, f.
found iho rrsonor guilty, their verdict ath hcen
mcrcfnly sol aside, tNl nav trial granted by the
sad 1t 10 set raht by attalnt. Jju. thoro hath
yet been no instance o. granting new trial wcro t!e
doss hs suhory dtny s pbo s u1s os s
Fight Of snbIccsing aefendant to the rlnka Of tri.
again IN the anne col!rt IN which he has bec
tiled aud acquitted but It also denies him ths right to
la.dant 10 stand another triut. On lhs point tho pre-
viii not tas your i iiicnce to multiply Citations.
Tho underlying principle Of thom ali a tho Basno. uud
tint 'hn pary c,,' hs placed III jeopardy tho
In tao Of tho Sta IL Brown, In tho 1s Conn.,
Rep, q a', 5s Church, H. in delivering tho opinion
asys: "1'hia defendant. waa Tried III tho Superior
Court, a1 upon hcsri!1g has bccn acquitted by tho
as sp i &
bofor. y this stats ws need not 20 in'o al e1a.
regard to tho granting u now trials upon conviction
~ crlmu.l presosationa "hshef they be FOR tresso
and 1t u concealed eyerys where tlo lrlnciles q
n,1fd ana pfsya ,n. ~ a eass. q
In which the accused han h ,en acquitted and hls nc.
qutstal lea nut bern proc II e by bis nw fraud es
now trial granted upon the motion OF tho slate Or pub
lie rrossea,or.' the mo Oh for new trial de-
nicd. Thts ''ssisioi s 9u,; one Of multitude that
Is 1t said that tho practien In civil courts cannot bo
taken as rulu for our actHa in thts sase? Then
express aud solemn aanoti TO tho very principle for
which asn contendlng II, tho New scnoo D!9cst, y.
3eo you vii ,l this stgnt Il ant 1evlaratioa ., nude y
III tho caHu Of Albert BiI et. The Assembly say !:
Tho attemp. to condemn 'f r. Barnes by conlcsnra
hearlng on charges wholly l:luntlcd on lilo bool IL
violation vt tho fundamental. maxim Of law.-thst TO
S 1s ,mse rS tn se for hn Of
in tho VERY faeo OF this dccsi Of tho Assembly.
But renrning now 10 ITO law Of spreai aud
In ANmS axk ~ !
when IN any inatanso ho is + ,sente1 from eaTryns
erpre1si aud appsa, i VIZ aud morcifui 1 provision on
0 @ I su mn a ussa y y
sion aid WTOnG TIn framer OF the law coltl
avo Intended that thls proy ot 1t should eyor DO
used. aud ceftanly ths ad lainstra.ors Of the law
only cases in which appoala ia ~, been postponed avo
boen the csscs of plrtlea who Nsrp sggrieved by the
decision appealed trun: Tho very fact of pos.pone.
ens presupposes that tho ,eaus Is All aggriospd
party.
havo thus brought under fl! aud crt!.cal exan-
tnaion nil those provisions Of !s Law Of appeal which
th II musl 10 oyrnt to all h 1t tic prosecutor for
public otcnEe has not shadow Of right IN law to
I'LL tha. provision wiich rcgur. ll.t party nst 10
agyrvcd in order to be cltltl, u to apah, this, Of
1tssh would 10 entirely soneu uye .ealast him. A;
party eau appeal catin thut who Is not ng-
erluyea party esn do so rhs l. ~ IS Perfectly clor:
by The proavsutor IN this ease Except tut o is an
original party All tho other IL dit!onn arc wanting
III Is csse ie Z not aggrieved i,a has uos anbnt
ted 10 regular trial II" Ae has ett hecn "a party on
trial II: he has not lad Imposed upon him griovons
aud injurious sentence; md hc IA not one 10 whom
trial." All these considerations &C biucd lutcrposc
inost otftetual bar 10 an appeal In b case.
The noso.n hsn ass taken and n'ana:ns ~
lIcaticu That says Tno eompa iat differs from IN
purity to inres!iaat.oa q lhuin.l to layo Lcen In.
jured by tue decision Of tue tuferi0 Jdicatory The
sonp;tut my b. brought By a,y srson Wig is rot
lion Ut the majority report before YOU would be bso
lutoy to obliterae all distinction otween an appeal
both the a Of tho Onr.h aud Tia 7l gbeyi jGlicatory
unte 10 declarc nrD dilertnt.
roorr1os OF 'rnosrot 1on.
And here NIL brought 10 consider tho true position
Of prosecutor IL sui! case us .hi |. is nyt that
Of an appellant, but that Ut com Il anant. II tho
prosecutor clss as o Ill substance Does that he
uncousitiona that It is injurios is 10 tho Interests
Of religion" Or that It is "calcaate to degrade flo
ocrn lin ehanco 10 repair this pui t,o aid m general
injury ~ complainant. but not 81 An appellant
complaint Is made t.
porsons respeosng decision by al aiurior jllltca-
lssn irregniarly or nnjustly maas." ii. b.. oasp.
VII, Sec. w, tEb.Soc, i.}
buch Is tha uchuuoH nf complains given Dy our
Book Of Discipline. II will bo obscryct that 1t pro.
vlcs for resort to tho higher courts by nny ono,
though he may 10 neither original party, nor an
regular trla1,' nor 1,S1ty under ~, ton9e, nor
perfectly manifcst, from t4ls language. that tho only
proper aua iega! course tor the rosccu to 'irsae
would haso been 10 conpluin? Tho law Ents him u.,-
ler manifold tli!tlculdts RproI t, anu nbso-
esy forbda that he shall appeal but z!vea ltin m
opcn way ~ q complainant.
or tho truth Of t4ta statement s assu co may bo
n,ado donbly sure" by noticing tho which the
Book OF Discipline defines caaea III which
paint IL proper aud advisable" Tbs cas- ii, described
ire threo %. d. ohap. vii, ser. w., ta!uc iii},
namely Whsrs !" tho Judgment Ut I'LL 'erior judi
:asory" has been .fayoraGle to the u party who
Question has done ou wrong 10 an Ind, 1ltlIa" aud
here tho purity who y ugsrssea y thu 5adg!nent
declines 1lo tyottbe Ut conducting .aa appsal.H
low exactly dc the frat two Of thea supposed
,sacs fit tho facts Of ths actual caao Will ~ yo are
called upon to decide. Tho Judgment Of .aa Chicago
resDylosy as bean favorable Prof. u wing, WHO
$ lc only party who has bccn placed at heir bar,"
md Il IL Judgment which hus tlonc 'the, wrong to
my Individual" II Any man was diAsal Ned with