New-York tribune., 1874-01-01
ARGUMENT OF HENRY L. CLINTON.


writ of habeas corpus issued by judge Fancher. Mr..
anks charges that Mr. BrtOn did this for the purpose
of deprving him "of his legal rights and causing him
TO be again Illegally incarcerated IN the common
Jail of the County Of Kings Ihe "rt1eh
sbarces against Mr. Britton, made and sworn TO-
state that on the 22d Of october. 1879 IN obedl-
ence to ubpeua he (Nr shanks) appeared before the
Grand Jury OF the County OF Kings That after having
been sworn a witness IN certain matter ana com
pant pending before the Grand Jury OF that County
certain question was propounded TO him, which be
refused to answer That the day he was taken
INTO custody and confined In the common Jail OF the
County OF Kings bv virtue of a commitment. in which
the term OF Imprisonment limited TO 30 days,
the law requires Is in effect perpetual imprison-
ueut uuless shaDks should d 20 answer the ques-
ton asked HIN before the Grand Jury.
MI CutOulthen recited the details OF Shanks's trans
fr 10 New York his appearance before Judge Fancher
on writ OF habeas corpus the atters exposure Of the
fact that commitment produced in Court was In
valid, and then showed by Mr.. Bnton's testimony ana
admissions that he learned that the commitment would
not hold shanks and that he subsequent TO tins time
framed another. aud the following day appeared in
Judge Plncher's Court "and behalf Of the Sheriff of
the County OF Kings produced, part Of the return
another and different commitment, which limited the
term OF imprisonment TO 20 days" Mr.. Clinton then
continued:
u alleged charges OF Mr shanks, that he
held custody, even for single miuute. or IN
any Way restrained liberty by OF the said
one r(, Ser INN T. - also alle@d m de char.es
that the sheriff gave Mr. Brittou permission TO
Tie return, produce before Judge Fancher, the
commitment on winch Mr. shdnks had been held Nlo
commitment which did not limit the term OF tmpris-
Oumeut, and that ne never gave the said winchester
i ~ or Igrice dfSr, Iusr'ce Fincber a. part OF
hs, sherhs return, any other or different com
mtmeu', aud that MIR BrtOn, instead OK .anneIlng 10
the return Of the sheriff the proper commitment
t0ted ia tie place thereof the commitment when An-
tied the term OF Imprisonment to 80 days
All Of these facts, which Mr.. BritiOn, in his sworn
ii
Judge Faucher. the joined be him, and
were beyond all question, established by the evidence
taken before Judge sper In snort, these facts
eOnirOverted Uy AIR. BritOn and substantially
admitted by nIm DIS evidence. The only poin,
involved H. with what ntelt he did that waic6 was
Charged against ann. The charges that these
iaudine Mr. snanks "of his legal rights ana causing
hun be untwiuly imprisoned and restrained OF mis-
hDr}.' M. but'on Ia his sworn answer, instead OF
adnnc the facts (which, m his evidence, be cOncrdes
to be uel ana taxing issue upon ms intent ana tnas
presenting The question whether he acted good
or bad IaltA, deuies the existence OF the facts.
WAS FORGERY COMMITTED9
That every fact forth in the charges OF Mr. Shanks
IL true and proven true by evidence, admit
OF question Mr.. Britton did everytbin. which IL al
legged against him m the charges; whether he acted with
good or a bad intent, iD altering and falsifylng
the return OF the sheriff Important considera-
uon. The Revised Statutes, 5th edition. p 95O section
25 ,e rso WITH intent d.'.ld or "a sy ,l,n 1''I =;
ocr roana to process Of any onr, shall upon
s05c.o- p. a a;ga g1nl, oi oI,i ~ ii 1 % l rrern
sowed the wrt Of haIeas corpus. and made it return
able the special Term OF the Supreme Court, TINS
statutory provision would have been applicable TO tine
case, 81 Mr. ButlOR. "wl.h intent 10 defrduoi' had
sIered OF al-ed the return Of sheriff Williams IN the
particulars specified Judge Fancber, however. was SIT
ting Chambers when he allowed the writ and made
u retufnabe before HIN Chambers instead OF the
Special Term For this reason the section OI the statute
above quoted does apply The following statutory
provision is important In this connection; ~
Every person who With intent miurr def-aud 'ha
Isi ~, NS es f b, % ,ny cr ent court or omc.,
an! r. ollsi OF T ,, @ ,.oo 1gaV ~ ssee5 baaDJ
shall dgc OF hfey IN ine 'nrd degree-la Revised
Tne return Of sheriff Williams writing"
"purporung to be "certneaJe Dy an onlcer.-
The qlesuOu before the Governor not whether any
technical deicnse may exist with reference 70 the
oheuse described III the section above quoted II Mr.
BrttOu. knowing tbat 1r. Sh8nkE held under
the commitment which limited the term OF imprison-
to 20 days, upon obtaining permission from
commitment, substituted IN lis place, Without the
totally different commitment, namely, the one which
limited the Imprisonment TO 80 days and ais object IN
person property" then OF guilt would be estab
nsned under TINS section OF The Revised Statutes #
the return the wrong commitment, there be
doubt on the evidence that his motive 20 injure"
" iu other words, him 10 be ncArceraLed
the common Jui the County OF Kings, and IN tnat
way reStralAed OF bis liberty.
BRIITOs RESPONSIBLE
II impossible for Mr. Bron to shirk the responsi
titty in this matter. Sheriff Williams authorized him
10 produce, part of his the proper commit
dence, p. u Sheriff Williams did not authorize
any Que but Mr. Brlton 10 produce the
proper commitment. II respectfully submit
Ted that the evidence taken before Judge
sper shows clearly conclusivey that Mr. Br1tton
Intentionally, wllully anddeberatey for the purpose
Of causing Mr. Shanks 10 b. further imprisoned m the
laii Of Kings County fased return OF the sheriff
by AnDeIing thereto and producing Judge Fan.
cher, commitment upon which MI Shanks as Mr. Brit
ton well Knew had never been held In custody by
me shern o Kings County. The evidence shows that
q. act In 1.dfa
Judge fancher. his opinion discharging Mr. Shanks
ailer holding that commitment (which did not limit
INC Hrm OF imprisonmenp was Illegal ana VOID pro-
ueeded ss follows:
OF ,oantm.a, under -s,eh tn. petitioner
oesoi wAs Imprisoned IN khgI Ceusty
1u osAIee N New iosA lOunty tts De ShsrG osy
s' for defeat the hAbas corpus
Is eonnen 'ia'e, th.i TIE Cov asd au1ss he guilty
to 30 dsys)
& hs s.spa MA; .'sL the As.nns on zoe aAs..
,pe.tee a paper seS, osoe the morning Tth
shsrso.1 Tss prostaas ~ tie S.Sss.
limiting u, tern Zen sp.omn 3 saHs 70 70 sss.
sesroas 10. order Of n. coart ce
'.dii1 this rrA.oss Il
and sr.i npn.Aa .daged u ssa
Il s very clear that after Ar. BrisIon ascsrtaIned
what the legal point was. on which Mr. shaDks
nicely 10 be discharged he determined TO fsHfy
turn Of the Sheriff and thus deprive Nj 5hanks the
eenent OF the legal points in his favor, upon which it
yold It's face. There DOUBT that
Ar Britton produced before Judge Fincher as part
tne term OF npr u daysI he knew tnat Mr.
snShks had never been held IN custody, or IN
HHDinlIment Dy the sheriff Commitment f.
inI,s.ng the term Of imprisonment. was never
his ofree by Mr. Brtton himself. the afternoon OF
@ so o. October. between and O'clock three hours
ven served upon the Deputy sheriff in Hew-York and
et one hour after shAnks had been practically dis
ssnargsd from custody Mr. Britton knew that the
ene5In never authorized him and produce
~, % bis retorp oomrii,neat L and the facts show
Hs F.Isd fran llaS