The New York herald., 1875-08-26
THE COURTS.
The Duffy Earle Shooting Case--The Writ
of Habeas Corpus Dismissed.
ovERCRowDYG OF STEAMERS SUITS.
Important Decisions at
General Term.

Judge Daniels, or the supremescourt, to whomSappl
ration was made the dschargeon writ OF hal eas
,orpus Of John A. Duffy, convicted in the Court of
General Sessions Of attempt 10 shoot Deputy Conn >
lroer Earle gave his decision yesterday in the
The material portions Of the opinion embodying the
decision are given below from which will be the
application is dcnicd:--
The relator was tried in the Court OF Sessions
Indictment charging him with having made assault
BY dschargng pistol nj aDOsler person. with intent
10 iniure him. without jus:iable excusabe cause
be convicted by the jury OF attempt TO commit
the crime charged and not OF rhe completed ohence s
ont In the indictment This, II is objected, conlu nor
be lawfully done. because 1t was not one
consisting OF different degrees IL is also INSISTED
hat sentence unlawfuly pronounced upon hiul Do
yause it stated in his behalf that ne was hSanc
the Court Sessions dsregarded these objections ana
held the conviction to bo proper one ana that tne
Jmpe response the insanity Of the accused was not
mfcient TO Justify the suspension N sentence IL Is
objected further that If tho Court could not Try ana COW
Wet the rclator Of an attempt commit the crime
ghe Judgment produced form no Justhabie cause
lor his continued imprisonment And the recent az,
sson Of the Court OF Appeals n 'ne 1e od 30 ne r1lv
TX rel William NJ Tweed vs. Liscomb IS urFcu az iuN
supporting position. lt IS true that inc Court 81
Appeals did IN that instance bold tha' ,ne pomur o y.
The Judgment rendered could be INQUIRIES
Into by virtue Of Wit OF haoeas oosPIss. Phs
,nd Tho docson then made must be accepted as inc
law Of that case But cannot be true that the Court
Intended to decide that the power TO render judgments
NJ tbe writ of hahes corpus Whenever decisions are
made which have right 70 make although at
he
and satisfactory they are srTty consiaereu WITHOUT
authority and when properly reversed that VIII IN
validate the proceedings Buf it has not been the pol
icy OF systems of laws 70 allow that 10 DC oone o
means Of the writ OF habeas corpus And 1t could not
be safely done in the execution OF any national code OF
criminal laws. The exercise Of such author |
NV would be raught with the greatest possible danger
tic public safety. Under 1t single county Judge
rould discharge prisoner from either prison or
penitcnarv OF the State the mistaken idea that some
lcoct found the powers of the courts which pro-
nounced their judgments Toa certain extent the power
Of determining the effect Of the judgments OF courts
aas been given all judicial tribunals, even those OF
lhe most inferior nature But the liberation of offenders
from custody is not allowed follow a consequence
Of the decisions which may be made by them That has
been solemnly guarded and protected, and the
safety OF the public has been considered as compaDie
with nothing less than that To promote and secure
lhat end and ut the same time to avoid deprivng the
of any of his rights the law has provided that
convictions by competent criminal courts shall only be
reversed by tribunals by OF specalproceed
ings provided for that purpose. Accordingly persons
convicted Of criminal offences are secured by the dement,
of the of error which all may procure us matter
OF strict right II the PLAIN object OF the |
law to conne convicted criminals to this OF pro-
reedngs for the redress OF all errors intervening IN
Iheir trial and sentence. That very plainly |
appears from the restraints imposed upon |
Ihe which may lawfully be made |
sf the Of habeas corpus The constitution has left
bhs within the regulating powers OF iegiSlaton pro-
Fided only that the privilege shall not be suspended
The question whether the Court had the /
legal power TO pronounce the judgment cannot he in
case is willing far forget his duty TO disregard
tho laws it has been rendered his solemn duty 70 OBJ
serve and administer II judgments eould De
disregarded because they might be considered unau
thorized and persons held liable TO punishment for |
crimes by of them be at liberty, 1t is
apparent that best interest OF the State may be
daneered by the ndugent of the habeas corpus by
any officer empowered to allow the writ. The opinion
by the dismissal OF the writ and the remand
ing Of the prisoner, with liberty, however to make
further application if the case be found proper one
tor bail