The New York herald., 1874-05-22

Transfer of the Cases to the Oyer and
Observation-Disclosures Barnard and
GOvcl nor Dix.
Before Judge Moore.
The Court of Sessions room was crowded yes
terday morning, principally by ofllce-holders and
politicians, in view OF the announcement that the
time Tor the trial Of the indicted Charity Commits
sioners-ex.TaX Collector Badeau and others
would be designated. The accused were present
in Court. they are the present Charity Commits
sioners-Messrs. Powell, Ferguson, Cunningham
and Wells; ex-Commissioners Foran, Seller, Scott
and Carr; eX-Collector Badeau, ex-Deputy Colec-
tor Gill; ex- City Treasurer Sprague who Is indicted
ior misfeasance
District Attorney Wlnsow said that he proposed
to try these cases In the Oyer and Termlner, and
he had given this notice in order that there might
not be any misunderstanding as to the time when
the parties might be called for trial. On the Sd OF
June he proposed to take up the case Of the Com
missioners OF Charities, after that the case OF
Sprague. then the Of Badeau ana at the end OF
that the case OF Gill. .ffa@ a4tt 4gA
Mr.. D. r. Barnard, who appeared for sprague,
opposed the transfer OF his case to the Oyer and
Termlner Mr.. Barnard sald:-I can the Courts
to what occurred At the time sprague
indictments found against him. stated then the
the indictments appeared to be Identical,
cens cens a not ava myself Of same the provis
ions OF the statute to move to qnash
that time, Mr.. Britton, said to me thai might
plead, but that he would not take advantage OF
that circumstance II IL became necessary alter the
:rial OF one o. these indictments to plead the
acquittal ON the others. In accordance with that
tnderstanding, upon the examination o. these
one the District Attorney reers-l intended as
soon as can get the Judgment made up OF the
former acqulttal. to present the plans of the
acquttal in all these cases. perceive, in eXamln-
ing the indictments. they are all Tor the same
orence. In reg srd TO Mr.. Badeaus case, shall
uDOu IL cnat the Governor shall make
court lor the trial oil that case. aude to what is
MATTER Or PUBLIC NOTORIETY.
that in the opinion OF the Governor the trial OF
the charges against the late District ATTORNEY, he
expressed an opinion as to the guilt of Mr.. Badeau.
no Governor-made Judge and no Governor-made
Court snail try that case. But we are determined
county OF Kings, by the courts OF the county OF
Kings and by Lne Judges elected by the people OF
this county. And wish to say no more. except
that the case being in this Court 1t Is not in the
power OF the District Attorney to remove tnat
case irom this Court, except upon proper notice
and upon SUFFICIENT grounds shown to the Court.
When that time comes we shall claim the ri ht to
keep that Indictment In tins Court. l state this
without knowing who may be the Court OF Oyer
nas been a
MATTER OF SUSPICION
to the judicial minds Of the country from which we
originated. from those oil England and Ireland,
ana they STOW the great danger OF q defendant or
prisoner Delng brought to trial by Judges and
courts constituted by government determined
to cuavict. Under the constitution and laws in
tilS State Jnere Is some provision WHICH prOtectS
defendants and prisoners from an attempt on the
part Of the government to crush and over helm
them. And that provision Is IN courts elected by
the people. In courts constituted by tue people,
and IN the proper places, where iair and Impair
tla trial can be had. Now, that being the case,
and the case OF Badeau not being jail case, be-
the defendant Is out on Daii. 1t is not compe
tent for the District Attorney, OF his own motion.
to remove the case into another court. In regard
to the Spraeue case, can satisfy the District
Attorney and Your Honor that that case
can never again be tried before court
and jury. therefore IL is necessary to
have had but two or three days since received
notice to come here, ana have not yet decided
whether q general plea would be sufficient or
whether 1t would be proper TO put In special
plea SO as to enable the District Attorney to put
in demurrer and bring
THE QUESTION OF LAW
before the Court whether the again be tried
before jury. II this case IS to be tried over
again 1t Is to be tried over In the same way pre-
clsely and the only dille eEce IN the Indictment Is
leaving out the words "feoniousy" and "embez-
Element" recountfng the same measure OF offence.
/ shall satisfy Your Honor that this i case that
cannot be again tried. Ihave nothing to do with
the other cases.
Mr. Winslow replied that none OF the matters re-
ferrcd to were before the Court. When ne made
motion to send the cases TO the oyer and TermIner
IL would be time enough TO consider IT,
Judge Moore did not understand that there was
any agreement made to set these cases down Ior
trial at any particular time. motion to transfer
would. therefore, have to be made III due form and
regular notice given In the proper way.
Mr.. Barnard then moved III the cprague case
that he be permitted to put In special plea OF the
former trial and acquita.
Mr.. Winslow said the time for that had not ar
MIR. Barnard said that was the understanding
with the 0rnler District Attorney.
MIR. Winslow said II the counsel could not meet at
the time he made he would like to hear from him.
This Terminated the proceedings.