New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-10-04
THE CANAL INDICTMENTS.
GEORGE D LORDS PLEA ovERRULED.


BUFFALO, N. Y, Oct. Sat the opening OF
the afternoon session of the Criminal Term Of the
Superior Court yesterday George ID. Lord appeared
accompanied by his counsel f. Carlton SDrague OF TINS
city. The courtroom was crowded with lawyers ana
prominent citizens who had to hear the decision OF
Judge Clinton upon the motion OF DistricAtlorney
Lockwood strike the special plea made by counsel
for the defendant under the statute OF limitations Judge
Clinton remarked that he had had little time to prepare
his decision since he had received the briefs handed him
by counsel during the early part OF the week. ana inc
work was therefore necessarily done with some haste
The decision had been prepared in writing and Is IN the
mann as follows:
II this plea wholly unnecessary or tenders on I'M
material issue, the Court has doubt not power 10 sihe
out II has power and il its duty TO refuse to receive
such plea, and II it has improperly reeelyed ana per
itted II TO be filed it ought disincumber the record
by removing it. The criminal law has always favored
conviction and punishment should tread upon the heels
OF guilt and that the innocent should be Vlndcaed Us
Imaginable defense upon the merits IS Admitted uhGcr
the plea OF not guilty and that special peaGEg 70 s
couutenanced in Indictment The allegations oi
the tine times OF the acts or omissions con-
shutting the crime are wholly lnmae.l uieSs .ae
time or times into the nature OF tine crime here
to adopt tho words Of the brief OF one OF inc ie r
counsel the prisoner the indictment shows an T9S
which must have been committed PRIOR 10 tue IJll VI
April IS7I OF course the DstrictAttSIhey cailloe
MON the trial this Indictment give PROOF c the ochn
sion of this felony by tge prisoner nc any ne beGie OF
after that date II the time we've lmlnatela no Nldhve
%etecI e allegation and the evidence OF It could yield
the prisoner any advantage here. Then the Indictment
shows that The felony CHARGED in it was com
itted NOR thln three years before itself presented
and filed and ii not that the prisoner was hOt
an Dhstant o. usually resident "lLiil I'M? St,tN
Jo@ e con,Iossion of the felony the Endine and
fixing OF itself TO reduce il to less aan three years AS
Stunning Tor the moment that tue limitation Ior tl.,,9
yoara which existed the felony was committed,
and not the Limitation FOR hve years suPo.i,n't "a
therefor ly the unendatory act OF 1913, IS 3ppca W
tbs indictment how ana when ia the benet vi INC nm
aton 10 he insisted upoa If The ihdclmIht hh0Ws 1mI
tan bars the prosecution II IL bad upon rs race btt
ths Indictment docs not show t1at hnila'lon Dtls .e
prosecution? The limitation is deems, any .e T,
nent never .tates and avoids IT, The Indictment peing
cod r. is evident that the prisOror can tciposc me
limitation as - sield only by Pleadhg u on thG il@' III
he must have the benefit Of IT on tAc tl OF Tue p0l
not guilty. then q special plea Of the Limitation Is wholly
unnecessary and ought MOI 10 he rectvea;; le ciine
cguno be proved without proving the lnc OF Us commits
sion and when the hard evidence" or as IN TINS ease the
NOS within three ears after tho connioh On ne crime
the prisoner during time sufficient, II deducted to
bring the finding and fling WITHIN the three years was
II not necessary for the prisoner 70 prove alr ine
negative OF which the people arc hound t1poNe tkfk'
agt Phillips Russ ct Rg, 800; The UniteC States aSt'
m Inc ,li,ne,f Of this notion the District itorney
took the gTouud that the limitation Of five years and
no; The limitation OF three years, applied 10 In" nct,
ment, aud that Tie question was leI} ca3Dr,iy Sha
~ tti indctn+Iit ii would seem that the special
a y,,oui he track ont does seem plain 70 me Eat
Il doe not appiy to this Indictment but am not pre-
ne TO say that this plain beyond all doubt and il is
Tp"seiic tbot further examination aud reelection might
ii,,c nv 0p.nion IL seems dUc the learned counsel
for tic prisoner that should state my ccncndons ana
nav reSGs for them and viii do so as briefly "a pos
sible The o. Dash AIT. Van kleeck q" J0lusoh
nizcd bcine Judge Demo says "a n l. T.. 2ol that IN
nat Gas it laid down "a principle 81 universal
Jurisprudence That all laws ore to be construed as fur
pisug rulc for future cases, unl, thcy contain
ar-lage uuegui'ocaly and certainly embracing past
RS. cSn1t,icon we ascertain the intention OF the
Gct ana crous anccs ou1iie te "ofGs may site orc
stand b i'm order f. embrace past transactions the act
must Away e>resSl mention az, ana cover mem N.Y.
examined al tae e'scs ctcd by thc prisoners cOsIln
favor OF the proposition that the amen iaory act df
1875 by ius. construction, does not extend to crimes
committed before rs la's2S ail ING ii none Oh tnem
aIs thing more thuH assertions 81 1e iah-iaf 4lhcIC
rte ava. or dDirish an existent right privilege
cot be- con. 1cd TO do unless the intention so To do
.,t d,ieTDgc,s between the sraiujc Of Limitations
proper and the statute prescrhing the limita-
o. L,,4 IONS re H. idciaTcs tlat its i;,,jfa
0aAae docnscs but tina. 10 De available thcy must be
is tic deissa II ri rcig private rights and priy
legs. and to re thata statute charging the lw - rot
sbld 80 aci Ne plainly expressed in ytsuto,
10 Doubt applies The power 10 make II retrospective
exists in NE Legislature, with the eXctpiloi rLdiS,
that . bcrrcd claim cannot DC reviewed. But an act
limiting tle finding OF indictments does moi scak 10
private pagtie7 nut IL an enactment Of element poc},
ind is addressed to tbce Vhys' duty IS 20 inycst
t-,I,e criminal complaints and lind indictments. AID
10 certain public officers and courts Its language
Grand I!fis "You shall not ind" and 70 the courts,
You shall not receive and file an indictment u 1t
appears that so n0ny years elapsed since e commission
q &c o.G IhG piscaGr riY %9i i te 81 tc
indictment was III Hiioi''.vh q. Itc ';., ~ i,.i.
mont proved nuliity ami It must III snide manner be
declared one by the Court l{ re sitlle the people
voluntarily rs - lic ihst'Mrhls' NI9-c HuHs Is IH
tied dcn0Ence the Old d0cih0 8uiiiGn jcjHS crcuTit
seqc The enactment il ono Ot genera! policy ana The
doctrine that ne Legislature mas pO%oF 10 mGdhE or
rp. It's acts in matters Of general policy nol acc
vested rights H. believe universally accented. 1t
seems haIdl} necessary 70 say mat the act OF lSl
changing thc limitation OF three years 10 rye years
no ini1ry By L the Legislature merely announces and
e4.cs change modification of its policy. Ii the lin-
talon Of three years had expired IL might well be
doubted whether The IceisiaIo could reyiYehe liability
10 Indictment This amendaoly enlargement OF th9 linz
itation docs lot come within either clause 81 Judge
SSs SenSh o % 1e fo Tae;y AM nn AZ ]
when done crime, does Il a2grayate crble mate
fnGicf greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime When &c committed, nor docs il alter tie
LEGAL rules 81 evidence and require ea or drout ;sii
mony 10 convict than The previous Law required The
learned judCe IN taat opinion has shown us what he
meant by tho last clause ot ms detdiiion. Ho sild; ~
consider any law post f1cto within the proihbi
ton that moic The rig0r OF the criminal law, bat only
those TIA, create OF agsraya,c tie crime, OF in.
crease the punishment or change the rules OF
evidence FOR the purpose Of conviction" Tbs
increase Of the limitation, | repeat, deprived |
him injury. Ihc criiIe IS charged % nave neeh
committed in l&7l The then statutory limitation 81 me
indictment 20 Wiim tilee ears Wa no Cohtt1 WIN or
privilege assured to him. aud II there we're danger 81 an
indictment he was warned ny the i'btlOh I" Keep MN
self prepared 10 meet II during tht thiee years bcioTs
the expiration Ui thai time the aiuclda'0ry act warned
him to Keep himself prepared for two years more. AN
s9:ry that other duics forbid 1lu ana clear ck
position these opinions 10 TrcapiIulae, these are
my opinons uf 1873, by just construction,
plies 81 tie felony charged 20 have been committed by
the prisoner ia 1871, and the Indictment found aud filed
AT this term time, bUt tbs conclusion - not
clear and fixed 20 warrant the striking out of the
special plea upon that ground The slec!a plea Is
WHOLLY Unnecessary. and is invitation 10 Imther
dilaOry pleading that ground II mast be struck CAT
After the judge had concluded the reading OF tho
decsiOn Dir pague stated that - counsel for the prs
oner he felt ii his duy to ask that before the cause was
hrorL n lrla nuea.nns VI flc Ae aLoul LAyN the