New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-09
GENET'S KEEPERS IN JAIL.


OF Oyer TerDner yesterday to see what wouid he
done with the .. sber NJ T. Brennan, and his deputy.
william II. Shields for falling 10 convey AssembymSu
Genet TO the Tombs. in compliance with the commit
ment issued by Judge Daniels The most lively Interest
manifested all sides IN the result OF the proceed
inGs aud opinions the remissness OF the Sheriff
were freely preferred among the numerous groups III
the side halls ana courtrooms.
The appearance OF tho Sheriff and his deputy Yes
terday was upon an order TO show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt OF court In
answer To the order Mr.. Burril produced lumber Of
afhdavts The affidavit OF the exsherin H. briefly,
denial that the commitment ever came into his hands
Deputy Sheriff WIN. II. Shields makes affidavit that
after the jury gave their verdict he happened
the court ROOM not being there as attendant upon
the Court or authorized 10 represent the Sheriff. Tho
Judge handed the commitment 10 the Court officer. Mr..
Valentine, who handed IL 70 him. saying: Take thus
man into custody do MT want to have anything " do
with him." Assistant Allen inquired,
WHO represents The sheriff. and he answered. ldo."
Mr. Allen then directed him to take away the prisoner
He took the home not receiving any instructions.
on the next day he took the prisoner beck TO Court and
the adjourned to Monday 10 prepare the b OF
exceptions and he took the prisoner home not receiving
any Instructions and 1t being publicly known that
he had the prisoner at his house the night before.
Mr.. Shields states further that when he was IN ile
United States District Attorneys Office with Genet S.r.
Brennan himself came IN and showed him letter fr"m
the DistrctAttOrney, and Genet said eXcitcd W. At
will they get up about me nextp
The other sdayits OF Mr. Waterbury and others Ire-
sent no new facts Hr stevenss affidavit is to tho
effect that commitment 70 the sheriff was made.
Mr. Allen Assistant District Attorney, makes connter
iidavt that he distinctly called shieds's attention TO
the fact that this was commitment to the City Prison.
| Mr.. Burrill next read an affidavit from ex Judge
aterbury to the effect that the prosecution, having
claimed that the prisoner should TO the Tombs under
| that commitment. the deponent appealed TO tho
Court and the Judge said the prisoner remain
the sherTs custody. Counsel next read the letter
written 10 the Sheriff by Assistant DistrctAttorney
Lyon at p. on Saturday warning him OF an attempt
| TO rescue the prisoner NOW In your custody" Tna
referred TO proof that il was considered that
| the prisoner ID the sherids custody.
| The case then adjourned to $3.50 p. IN, Judge
Daniels having TO sit in General Term. Al that hour
Mr.. Burrill resumed his argument he urged that The
Sheriff has custody OF prisoners except those IN the
prisoner In Tombs the commitment would be handed
not TO shers officer, but to court officer and that
no duty OF conveying the prisoner 10 the Tomhs
devoved the sheriff and that he not entity o.
charge ehy OF Shields p and c, on whose
ndeliiy, from long service, he coud rely.
the Sheriff The next morning the Prosecution raw tie
deputy sheriff taking the prisoner back to court and
they knew he had not been nearceriteo ana lbat ne
the Tombs. But the Court selected the Sheriff 10 take
charge OF him. and in his Office as sheriff the defendant
was not in any way responsible, and waa no more
responsible taan any other person wcad DO whom the
| Court might select take charge OF the prisoner.
Neither the commitment paper nor any order OF the
Court required the Sheriff TO take tins man 10 prison. and
Between this and the prison the sheriff had authority
TO detain the man on that commitment; II was not III
rected him take the mau to prison Il was directed
| TO the Warden. II was only in case the Court shond
hold that the delivery OF the commitment 90 Lls deputy,
by implication OF law. devolved On the sheriff The duIy
faith on part of the Sheriff would have to be consd
| cred There nothing in the papers TO show thai
Shields or Cahill ala not act IN COCA Ialtn
! DstrictAttorney Phelps replied that application wa-
made to bail the prisoner pending sentence. which Was
refused and then commitment wa, made out IN the
p.ou dG nd back ans By Is
conversation about whether sherfs officer or court
rected thar Sheriff. officer receive It, and u became
his duty turn the prisoner at once 10 the Warden or
to whom the commitment was made our aud That woIld
his duty. he was not that particular sberns
| officer known 10 every one as having the particular
TO whether sheriff custodian NJ the city Prison
After receiving in person letter from the District
rescue tue prisoner the Sheriff and the deputy
assuming the risk of OBTAINING the prisoner from the
prison ne committed to; they allowed HIM 10 ESCAPE
instead of consignng him to the lawful custody to which
he was consigned and they must take the
Judge Daniels asked whether The sheriff had custody
| OF the prisoner when that warning was received.
sheriff the deputy and the prisoner were all together
MI Bnrrl replied that II was PLAIN that the object Of
the prisoners counsel asking that the Court turn him
over the sherf's officer and not court officer
that the man should not he taken 10 prison for the
present. This well known to the prosecution. H.
| was a practice which had grown up owing 10 the
| anomalous condition Of the jails.
| Judge Daniels said IL he had known on Saturday
morning that Genet had not been IN prison, he would
Judge Daniels said that though the Sheriff had not
custody the prison legally and strictly but BY virtue
of his Office he had authority IN common with his dep
uties offender to prison IL the officer did
NOT understand that he bad authority TO execute such
an order he would not, as 1t appeared by Mr. Aliens
| afidayit when asked by Mr.. Allen whether anya one
| would be there after the verdict TO represent the
sheriff. have answered as he did that there would be-
He accordingly came cack and publicly received the
commitment one OF the sherin's deputies. The
mment was very pam, ana tne prisoner was placed
in his custody, with the commitment TO guide him aud
no other instructions, and his PLAN duty was to eopnne
| com mitted. There direction any where that
Shields should retain him, but he took ii Oh himself
though he could not have any doubt what bis duties
were to fall convey that prisoner to the prison. and
the Court believed he wifuly continued to neglect thst
mtted to the custody OF the warden" and the officer
willfay neglected ast duty , ana retained BIN IN
| Judge Daniels then commented on the delivery Of
letter from tho @ "A tor once to the Sheriff
the fact that the prisoner was allowed to take and
hbit the letter. and that change whatever made
and no precautions taken. From this he said IL
was plain that the Sheriff had made himself party TO
| the Conduct Of Shields The order Of The usual
for the sheri or deputy for having tins man at large
The language of the commitment was 30 unequiyocsi
that Court could not resist the inference there
was design ON the part of the Sheriff and
his deputy not to w,, execute r.o their duty; ana
Public officers not appointed for their private
emoument. but for the public benefit and courts would
be poweress their orders were neglected. There
nothing justify either OF the officers thinking they
were at liberty to retain the prisoner their own Gus
tOd for an indefinite nme for the pary fees the county
The to.I! then imposed the highest penalty both
County jail IN Ludow-st
SENTENCE EXECUTED.
II seemed evident that the District Attorney ex.
pected that . term Of Imprisonment would
form part Of the sentence, for before the