New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-09-07


Jail. House Of Correction. or state Prison. ..,
This case rs remarkable for the ease snd ciearhess wis
which great and Just judge swept aside the techncany
which led the Court Of Queens Bench IN Rex ae kown
sod 70 hold that , mot "a whole
although the sentence does not exceed the cum III e
cision in Carlton sst. The Commonwealth is approved
b. the Court N se following s ess Scy s cemo
wealth ii Metcalf, SIS; Kite agt Common wealth III
Motcf ISL; co,amonwsaith ae. Hills 10 cas 50 me-
lat 1 SG easo The cSurf Morton j. said:
sesrs Ss Counts ss, Of the ,S
1iSs sS are a1a s %qe oas the eana ps
the commoa law apply IN The same NAME, ?, lsney
some OF the hold that II the record
fails disclose that there were not several oncnes e
Court writ twhere the punishment imposed es
the statute for oGsej viii presume mat .ners
sufficient number OF separate oneises cnaigcu ,u
proved to justify the sentence, and tht the presiding
Judge who heard the evidence, proceeded according ~
the facts shown Massachusetts, is State where the
common law land II may be added common sense prs
walls Vino has yet heard that tie liberties or the people
have been overthrown in hat state, altaonxh the
critics" thieves have been somewhat crcunscrioea;
In the State against Fuller t3i Conn. 2so) the court
Ii essential to the admin of Justice that several
shoud Joined in cases of miscnennor
neccon or that the Jury should De red rG 20
Special on each cont Mpcrs ,Is nls the Jury will
be presumed to have ioaHl prisoner guilty upon all The
s tie ana acts si proven EST on the the trial. s2'
In Pensy ivana the r1e Is established py decso9s 81
the highest cOnr lu the Commonwealth agt D,iustll,
81 Penn 4s2, The prisoner was convicted OF TWO
pronounced two sentences for consecutive terms ol
r"r,ar and sfsrmed the judgments And see Common
wealth agt Gillespie, serg and Rawle 40 and me sew
ner ~ Wisconsin IL also in point II well settled
pra OF the courts OF NewJery that several onenses
may ioneI In indictment, and on CONVICTION or
more than cumulative sentences may be pronounced,
by statute of the United states e Joni:r OF onsoes
counts is provided for aud tne Same statute declares
If two indictments are found IN such cases
he
statute passed Ia 1898 90 u. g. sitdteS al larse y.
1921 No provision Is made by statute Tor the Judgment
In such cases. II hardly he, thai the statute permits
IA criminal, against whom several indictments are lehi
enabling him TO avoid all punishment except Tor single
JUDGE Mclean Of the Supreme Court of the United
states held in United States OCaliahan. that where
conviction OF several ofcnses thus occurs the punish
ment Appropriate to each msr be inflicted q Siclfsn
59S) AID The Judges Of the Federal Courts have oftei
pronounced Judgments, covering several ofenses az
so'id inbctins punishment greater in inc s.atnae
questioned that practice.
PRACTICE IN THIS STATE.
In this State reported where the precise qes'
ton of cumulative punislments was involved But no
reported to the contrary and no authoritative
writer has laid down different rule. What the courts
and Judges said about the matter IL altogethrr In
direction. In Kane against The People T. Weid 2ool
IN Court OF Errors point was distinctly 'nade W co'
sci Cor the defendant in these WORDS:
There is mlsIoindsr of oatuses in the ndctment-
of different corporations
In answer to point the Chancellor said in his op-
ion, which the opinion Of the Court:
objection Tor msoinder of counts In the indictment
II en r TaS 10 e RI 1 Of to- Coart bso bsios
onses OF tire same nature and upon wcl ne
Inherent count, Of the Indictment And III the
s sa %, nt pnent ts prosecutor perts 70 join try
several Instinct oienss in tiie same Indictment
Senator VIM H. Seward then JUICE of the Court OF
Errors in answer to the same roiut said
Of e AMI san az no " arc re pPor
In this ease the Court regarded point Of msonder
as properly made and met and disposed OF II accordingly
sweeping aside those Opinions and decision as mere
In the People ast Costello, DEMO 90, Judge Boards
ley WHO delivered the opinion Of the Court, said:
Distinct onses charged in the aere9t mt, counts Of this
Indictment, !nd me evidence "en 70 rnaa yars ,as
meanoTs and il s well settled that several isdemeanor.
be Joined in the same nicgnen and ooos Tor al
may aS pes al a su re n r lo oo G EV Zig sex
ssi jones' CONT 49, ag People, 3 Wend 2l1i
S@. Sr r iG is s ,ss Az and aMic @7G
It's OBVIOUS from the cases ne cites t,t judge Bards
ley gave the question a careful examination In The
People agt. Gates, lJ Wend page 323, savage, e. Jy
said: MI. ,,oo.,,.a. ,,.,,ors ,,,,
there Imrrorricty in TRYING prso,er for dnsrsnt
same 'f grade a. s ami s .Tjec punishment
Peo agt. kyncers Il Weni, 2I9.
In Holgnan ayt. The People, DEMO, 226, the ndiet-
ment charged ige separate inislemeanors in different
and The Gr % 1 d tAs ey EsT" ann ts s
e. ish either count competent Dit tnit tlc people,
naving gycn evidence tending establish the several
odenss charged. could not 20 farther and give evidence
not charged in the indictment; and see People
agt. Baker, ) Hill, i39.
this state to the point that several ds met iiseneahos
may united III separate counts IN tie same dotment,
aud tried the time. and convlc1ns had for az
many As may be proved. they were not it is said, ex-
press authority 10 the punishment that nig no IN
tcted Is It the fair Inference therefore, that these
courts aud judges hold that several Inisdeneaors may
he united tried together AM separate CONVICTIONS li'
the purpose as soon - inc Verdlcts are pro
nouneei OF "heiaS We ciI" Iron ,n pth u.s. r
tried and convicted of several mlsiencanors on one III
dctment and that be done, how ia law or morals does he
stand differently before the cour for punishment than
he would tTicJ and convicted ot the same cincs on
separate indictments!
In the ease OF separate Indictments he must be
tenced cinllavcy aud conscctyry by The statute 81
that operate otherwise II there be conviction Of the
same charged distinct Oenses in one iudct-
,nen what hidden alchemy of The law converts the sew
erai crimes into win such absolute solidarity mat
the Court loses al jurisdiction IN, instant Judgment s
pronounced a single ocnse. and the Judge becomes
super and criminal he conform me Judgment 70 the
record and verdict II Is boast Of the common law that
several misdeineanors 70 be Joined and tried together
having no END IN "w IMAM tne o, ",S
and ought TO be upheld By statute, a. otherwise
numerous crimes must 20 mpunished Twesds INSIDE
neanors were so NUMEROUS that 1t would have been I'M
practicable have tried them one by one, On separate
indictments, without expenditure O tine and money
greater tnan tine State cOud bear without blocking
the avenues Justice for an indefinite period BY unit
ing hem trial dis posed OF all ana their nature was
such that no defense on the merits have been inter
posed that not equally pertinent 10 all WAS
nothing due the public Interests III such case Are
CONSTITUTIONS and made solely for the protection OF
criminals against the consequences OF CRIME is the
reward OF IMMUNITY 20 be adiudged To Offenders whose
crimes are that they cannot he t1e'i sep
aatcy because OF their very number These are dues
,luns the answers which lie at the foundation ~ tie
common law re and makes it's good sense palpaDie to
every mind it il SAID the accused may DC enDIr-
rs,ed IN his defense and challenges. IL be is
only an argument inst the ionder and joint trial OF
oses, aud ~ oil against the power or the Court Ia
uonouncng sentence conviction TIE common law
courts 81 England IA. respected these objections as
to make them the ground Of the right OF the prisoner III
f,oncs only to Insist that the prosecutor elect on
which charge proceed; but II no election was asked