New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-30
THE COURTS.
DryIsiBHITY OF A CRIME.

u
A 6IAM THAT TIKI PACT THAT THERE WAS
SECOND COUNTERFEIT PLATE DOES NOT JUSTIFY
THE SECOND TRIAL or MINER.
In the United States Circuit Court, in Octo.
ber 1871 two indictments found sgsinst Joshua d.
Miner for hhynk o., Ms possessoa and control cSrtss
plates for printing counterfeit money. TIE plate s'oss
fed I'm the rst indctment was fsr,producng counter
felt 90 bills the National Bank bf Poug koepsie ana
the ono mentioned in tho second indictment was Zoe
making counterfeit n bills on The Ninth National Bank
Of this city Decembcr. 1871 Minor WA srted be'ofs
Judge Benedict on the arst lndictment. ErJadge rub
lerOn defended him, aud exJsdso Eowsrds re'repos'
was employed special counsel TO condct tho oso sf
the Government A notorious oonnterieiief' heDry u
Cole, who had been pardoned. as ne stated tnA' %
might testify against Miner the principal witness
for tbe orosesuton Coles testimony weakly
By that several dclectves and eydcaos
uas Introduced ten6ing show that Miner never had
in his possession the plates question After long
ana otiy-contested trial. the jury speedily found
verdict of not guilty.
Early IN tho present Of the United states Crous
Court. Judge Benedict presiding. Assistant United
stotes Pardy moved for tho trisi OF
Miner on tho second indictment referred Co. aud eH-
Judge Fullerton interpreted In behalf OF sue accused
plea of aure|os dcQu Insisting that no could not 10
tried on the second Indictment because the felonies
charged In are alleged ito have grown out OF tho
identical act" act fort bin tho Indictment upon which
anest ana most important ever raised In this
district upon the gubject OF twice putting man In
Jeopardy alleged crime came up Yesterday.
and IN the conrso OF hts argument eI'Jadse Fullerton
spoke Substantially as follows:
That the oaenses charged In the iodict-
ments gre out OF tho act Is apparent from tho
staene mt OF facts defendant had the plates
all, they inseparsele during that possession ey
being one package tied with string. The question:
then u.s. Did act OF possession OF the two coun-
terfeit plates. II tho defendant mad them AZ all oense
AMI. 4 nffans hast
adopted In OF this character seems 20 be this
Where the act out OF which It ale the TWO
IT, In tho under consideration there was no aot
which inflicted wrong upon any particular indvduas;
Tue crime charged tho indictment ~ IN the Wicked
nd una wu intent OF the defendant 10 use tho pasH
for printing counterfeit MONEY The intent was novss
several plates aud passed on different persons ~
different times he would nave committed more man Sns
injuries. Where the crime, therefore, consists OF to UNI
though that intent may embrace the possibility OF com
hitting several Oenses Unt those dIHereoL ouensoe
are comnited however. there Is only one oGense for
which the accused could be indicted and convicted
There apparent contradiction aud inconsistency In
many cases found books upon this subject but
they will in great measure disappear upon ciissihca.
Of tho giving rise 10 them But whatever may
States and counties We are not without pertinent aa
thOrity upon It ia our own State refer To Louis Lam
PIERS case report OF which Is vol 6p l9 Of The Os
nan Recorder The substance Of that is AS follows:
Tnere were two indictments found against the prison
an intent to pass one conterelt 81 bill on the Frank
Bank aud tho othor tins offense IN relation
Bank The bill OF Franklin bank having been proved
counterfeit It further appeared la evidence that
there found upon tue prisoner when he was ar.
rested lOl IS bills New Brunswick Bank II $40 OF
the Montreal Bank 36 IN g. bills OF the brunswick BANK.
and Al 81 bills OF the Franklin Bank. all OF which wero
satisfactorily proved 70 be counterfeit dnd to DStrct
Attorney about calling tue attention OF the Jury 70
the indictment, which, ny assent they nad Deon
sworn try at the same time. An objection 10 pro
oeeding on the same indictment was raised, as u sp
peared from the testimony that all the bills were found
In the OF tho prisoner at tue same t' Inn
therefore, was ony one ohense Bur was argued that
the prisoner might well DO tried on this Indictment, ~
the possession OF each bill distinct oIenso Tho
Mayor pronounced the decision OF the Court that tho
public could not under the evidence proceed
10 the trial of second Indictment As well might
prisoner who should steal 30 several articles amounting
than IS eaen, At the same timo 10 toa vi ~
separate indictments
Ex,Ju1ge Fullerton claimed that Lampiers case WA
10 its legal ASPECTS identical With Mners case sev
eral other authorities cited in support OF the 20
sit,on taken by Defense among which was that OF
Wilson ct al ayt tho State ga Conn. g. 1889 In de-
lyering the opuIon In that case, Chief Justice Waito
said:
take it to be a sound rule Of, Law. founded upon
the painest principles OF natural Justice that where
cri al act been Committed every part OF whc
NAV be allie 2et Ia single count IN Indictment. aud
proved under the act cannot DO Spit into seVera as
tnct crimes. aud separate indictment sustained upon
each.
In his brief reply to exJudge Fullerton. Assistant
Inited States Attorney Purdy argued that,
the general principles Of criminal law. he could hold
Miner for trial on the second indictment because the
plate specified In it not mentioned in the indict
ment upon which he acquitted. and Judge Benedict
reserved his decision.
ExJudge Fullerton says that II forced To trial on the
second indictment he Is confident VI success because
the same evidence must be used on which Miner was
acquitted IN the first instance.