The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-10-11
BROOKLYN COURTS.
SUPREME COURT-CIRCUIT.
The Kelsey Murder Cause.-The Accused,
sammis and Banks, To BE Tried in
Suffolk COMMUNICATION Denying n
Change Of Venue.

The Kelsey Murder Gasoline Accused,
sammis and Banks, To BE Tried in
Suffolk CONFEDERATION Denying n
Change Of Venue.
Before Judge Pratt.
The People VS.. Royal Sammis and Rudolph SAM
mis- indicted for murder; The People VS.. Royal
sammis and George B. Banks, indicted for riot
Judge Pratt OF the Supreme Court, Circuit Of
Kings county, before whom a motion for change
OF venue from Suffolk county to some other place
was argued last week, has rendered a
decision denying the motion. The victim OF
the murder which occurred at Hunting
ton, L. l.. about twenty-three months ago, was
Charles II. Kelsey and the circumstances. which
are OF a most sickening character, are familiar,
doubtless, to the readers Of the HERALD. Last fall
the Grand Jury OF Suffolk county indicted Royal
G. Sammis and DR.. Banks, the first for murder in
the second degree and the latter for riot 1t was
claimed by Counsellor Brooks, who appeared for
the accused and argued the motion for change Of
place OF trial. that it impossible for his clients
TO have lair trial in Suffolk county, the prejudice
there being SO strong against them. In
his decision Judge Pratt says:-'1t Is too
plain TO require statement that every person
sccused o. Sr%s nas gs 1e be
mental principle OF law established as well for the
protection the accused as Tor The benefit OF the
puolic, That every person charged with crire shall
he tried by a jury OF the vicInage.' This being
the rule OF law IN the absence or proof the pre-
sumption exists that an impartial trial be mad
in the county where the indictment is found. The
burden rests with the party making the motion to
overthrow this presumption. The authorities
clearly assert the doctrine that party who
moves to change the place OF trial from where the
law primarily establishes IL must fail unless he
SATISFIES the Court That the ends OF justice require
1t or, at all events, Will be promoted by it, L
nave carefully read the moving papers
and am satisfied that no case mas been mace out
WITHIN the principles laid down. Ii IL not to be
expected in this age OF competition and enterprise
OF the paIt OF the press, tnat any unusual occur
renee will be unreported; indeed IL Is impossible
TO prevent, even II 1t were desirable, more less
discussion of the facts and circumstances sur
rounding any great crime. But II does not ioilow
IRON this that there Is any prejudice created in
| the community against any particular individual.
There may be great excitement and popular
! strong desire 10 bring the perpetrators to
/ Justice. Yet 1t does not follow that
/ any person charged with such crime cannot
be lairIy tried in such community. II is to be OBJ
l served that the principal alfldavits upon winch
! these motions are based Is that OF Royal Sammls,
one OF the accused parties who resides in the
town OF Huntington. Tnirty-iour afidavts are
made by the residents Of that town, not one OF
which set forth any as occurring outside oil the
| limits or said town, but simply stating that the
I affiants had read the a1idavit OF Royal Samms,
| and believed the statement therein TO be true,
! The matters contained in the statement OF Royal
| Sammis then furnish the basis OF these motions.
Laying aside matters purely OF belief and bu'
/ little is lett in the moving afdavits TO dis
! cuss fail 70 find any sufficient evidence OF bias
! or prejudice to satisfy me tnat the people or SUI
tok county cannot give these ,s deen e, ian
4 crime has been committed or even whether the
| defendants may be convicted herewith, bu
! whether the people OF that county are capable o
/ furnishing an unprejudiced jury under the law al
IL now exists. The TACT that certain persons were
lined for contempt, and That an INQUEST was heit
4 upon certain remains. are equally insufficient
There Is no proof that the reports or tue proceed
Ings In the case have created any hostile ieelini
i TO these defendants. | am satisfied that the end
OF instice will not be promoted by change OF We
nue.. The motion must therefore be denied"