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

the 0hense limited to years imprisonment, TINS
bringing the case directly within @ distinction
raised by the Court Of Appeals in Tweed's case The
prisoner found guilty, upon clear evidence, as the
states, upon each count The Court pronounced
sentence Of imprisonment for 1.-TWO years" On error to
the Kings Bench all the judges but two being present
the Court reversed the Judgment the ground that
there should have been consecutive Judgments OF ono
years imprisonment each" on the yerdcts This case Is
thus cited in Bishop, Grim Proceeding, Sec f12s.
In England where Indictment In two counts
nor missmeanor and the onses were N aet separate am 81
for each ogsnse not exceeding year yet the
judge passed one general sentence OF two years
served to be wrong There should have been On tns .wa
Douglass against The Queen 3Queens Bench r. 74,et
seq, IL a quite analogous to Tweed's. Archibald
Douglass officer in the service OF the East lndia
Company. The statute declared IL a msdelneanor
punishable by fne and Imprisonment for any officer in
that service to receive bride; and also declared that
the amount Of the brbe SHOULD be forfeited to the Crown
The AttorneyGenera Gled information AGAINST Doug
lass containing sixty counts. charging so many dslct
osnses Of receiving bribes at different times and OF dil-
apee and is 1 value English money On the
defendant was found guilty on the secord tn,id hiln'
feenth and fhlrty-seventh counts tand also seven
other counts which aferward notIe pressed W tnc
and not gny on sh tne c Snsr
why the Judgment should not be arrested ,,s %a s
argued in full Bench ami the rule h.rged judgment
was then pronounced by the Court in banc, all tho
both fines ard Imprisonment each OF the nine counts
which he stood convicted and separate JUDGMENT in
the nature OF line also given on each Ot those
counts OF FORT iure 10 the Queen OF the aulo'n, gu ne
brides respectively charged therein. agcre~stny s3941.
los. Sd. and Of further Imprisonment I'LL paid INC
Judgment also committed the defendant to the custody
~ the keeper Of the Prison IN execution OF tne luesoc
iii the several nncs bc paid AMI each OF them nspeet
iyely" OF appal to the Court OF LSciiegTer me case
aud unaniInousiy ailirmcd In thai only nine
Of imprisonment and nine distinct fines were I'M
tae bribcs and npris onmet till the whole he paid The
went 10 the Court Of Elk heder on the question OF
the power OF the Court to give Judgments also ioi te
forfeiture and ii was held that the Court possessed t'
power. o.<, - =,
Il Clark Il Finn 1851 appeal TO the House or Lords,
said by the learned Judges which sheds Ignt
dcted several isdeleeanors charged IN separate
counts solne OF winch held on the appeal 10 be bal
aDs law sr rue * onar onss and punishment
Tinid G. tal page 2tll sad: IL mus inaesu a oe
for misdeneanor fr,ters nom that IN prosecl-
ton for felony that there may DE- several eounln ,1r u
In that the prosecutor is not always put to his cleo
in OF felony bat the trial may proceed anu
from each other Patterson %. 26I said: .o-.
indictments for msdemeancrs there u really more
oIlse een.nod IN tns ndeaeni me J,
n nS S eSr Is ad tor y pa i be oad
yced Is most usual to pas s sce Of c treaiina them
CoItnian. j. BlTDn Parkc ana Lord Denman expressed
tbciuseyes TO the same import, the last named saying
pass for three oHenss " n II ht parry -
well convict, Of 9nl$ tWo carmel e r, in an IN
dctnent for misiemoanoT are supposed 70 apply 20 i
ferent osenscs. They often do 80 and always may
Lor! Ci.Dp',ell, AT page 4lj, said ,, $1,000
II inter mistake to suppose tat tcre lsony one coPs
icment Ven With respect felony, law sapposes
inasn@rs lice are not in equeniy the different
te, dcrent oaises Of different sorts committed al dier
Inc following eases show that coemporary convictions
on separate indictments properly punished W Gu
mi ati W. n
Rex against Williams. l Leach. & Cases, $50.
Rex against Wilkes BlIrow' -'o"''
In Gregory arainst Regina Is O. b. o74 criminal in
formation was filed containing four counts FOR libel On
conviction Of all the counts sentence given of two
months imprisonment on each count ON VIII oi error
The Court reversed tine conviction ana ludSnent On me
tiird count and affirmed the Others WITH direction dl
the sentence the fourth count cOrinelce at Tue eApu
ton 0i The second sentence.
THE TiCIIBORYE CASE.
The late case of The Queen against Castro alias Itch
borne Familiarity known in this country the TcEsoIne
case is clearly illustrative OF ,he common law RUE
The prisoner indicted for two distinct crimes of per-
Jury Perjury common law WAS a mere inisdeineanor
II continues to ba msicmranor in Enganh except in
some specially provided for by statute Tchbornes
ofenses not within that statute The indictment
charged in separate counts two common law INSIDE
neauors-One in swearing falsely III the cJectineht
suit OF Tichborne agt Tcnbone; the other for the
false notification Of pleading in chancery The
punishment for the of.nse is fixed by statute
or transportation Tie prisoner triol upon both
counts aud after tie longest trial in criminal annals was
fonnd guilty of both charecs The trial took place IN
6ane-llst is, before the bench of judges OF the
Gockbnrn, and Justices Lash and Melor. The highe'i
punishment for one o'tense was seven years me Court
pronounced Judgment on the fist cout III seven years
transportation. and on the secoui count Of seven years
more, TO commence at the "rmliatol OF the hr,l sen
cand FOR Ralt century has eHcitcd so
tLe part OF lie prisoners friends and counsel,
yet has yet suggested tlat Tie triai cCfltlon
and ssnence for distinct ocnses were not in strict
conformity to the l0nsetlc1 common law q England
II II possible to bring against the Chict Iustcc the
accusation Of departing from or dis,es.iilns the cP
mas vet been suggested in country where the comaon
law, in respect to the rights II c"nies on accused
question raised at the trial o since Is The best poss
bic cytnc' mat me Ia Is 10 1ig al' ven M
that counsel in England would risk his reputation Dy
eIcnen,ary writers and the authorities above clted
STOW also that ~ law there Is no distinction III
N The "a crci:on q" me Cor anu l'osc III Viii 1t
regulated and limited by statute. In two of INC eases
ling ng af s kS anS @ iei limited the pSnay and
was held tna The extreme limit might he ctnuiaiyey
imposed And there could be no difference I'D sou u " OK
logic alIse whore the anoud 1T punishment ~ In the
discretion v tie the pronouncing Of one Judgment
exercise OF and cyhl-ts the discretion IL
only because e Court has powcrto pronounce several
Judgments that the discretion cin he again exercised
Where there are convictions of several oles's, sncl
sentences not thin outspre@ng OF discretion To
punish single crime but each Is always an iudep ndent
tile defendant stands convicted.
Tue American elementary writer's on criminal law arc
alike uniform in their views. Wharton SAYS:
The only legitimate when the severa COUNTS arc
simplv successive ~ one orcnse Is hHtpyse
se flaming the highest oneire dropping
tn This the superstition thar the eS'la con ts
modicaos 81 the saie OHeiise
Here Dc cumulative punish
m.u,s equally Stands reason that wlmh twoU Iprc
coupe Ia the same Indictment anu TIRE
verdict OF gaty thea cumulative punishment
he to pennsylvania
which IL niore exact distinct PUNISHMENT on each count
1nis divers authorities To sustain MS prOO-
siiion % American criminal Law, ed Blshop on
Criminal Pro ,eedn2s Vol. l. see ll2U mas ALREADY
bn referred 10 I'm connection with the OF Tie King
act Robinson. In the section following the learned