The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-19
CARL YOGT.
.HE WRIT OF cEHTIoRARI DIscHARGED-THE
PRISONER REMANDED.

sHE WRIT OF cEHTIoRARI DIsCHARGED-THE
PRISONER REMANDED.
Judge BlatcnfJrd yesterday, in very lengthy
-vecislon on the application by writ or certoran
10 review the action OF United States Commits
sioner White, upon whose commitment Carl Vogt
is held to await the decision OF the Executive
with regard to his extradition, discharges the
writ and remands the prisoner TO the custody OIL
the marshal. vogt, or Supp, is charged with the
murder OF the Cneyaler Du Bots de Blanco. at
Brussels, on the morning Of OCTOBER J. 1871; also
with arson and robbery In setting fire TO the
room where the deceased lay and abstracttng from
a safe In an adjoining room many valuable pa
pers bonds &c. The case has excited a great
deal ofInterest among the legal profession and
politicians. The prisoners counsel have not yet
exhausted all legal remedy, and there is no doubt
that the case viii be once more brought 70 the
Supreme Court OF the United states
JUDGE BLATCnFORD's DECISION
The following Is a very much condensed report
OF the decision IN the case:-
The prisoner committed the custody Of the
missioner % await the isuns by tue President o.
% me s1 treafy 81 extraon viii that country con-
GLUED March lsli o. charge q having COMMITTED
% the q the lst or "a Of October ls1 tie is
On rtt Of certarar It / contenis Tor the prisoner
mat h5eysT y Sesh me a 81 o NE
United states h is the duty OF the Court
sSs eA writ Il has issaea Upon examains ali the
sases ami authorities hearing unon THIS case deciie
thai have no authority under the review the
business the decision Of the Commissioner Tue Pres
sued b him for lie extraaton o. the prisoner ne
stance might have doubled whether the law properly
interpreted would support charse o. forgery Tor me
have declined commit The prisoner the charge,
wrR me furthest te Court could 10 THIS writ OF
aabess CORPUS aer aseeranns tn,t mere was legal
.usation. bail the d thi- particular
s s Ts oar may inquire whe aer he
bad JURISDICTION over VS. Csc wheiaer he was antnor
De had before BIN ega evidence tending 70 prove The
act as court review it bad before i writ %
errar ~ MS Sase ~, ~ ~ me- Pnsi9ent ~.
that power i he should b q ne opinion tnat ne ey
4 MAINTAIN charle ienit would be ms duty with
ION t6atit wa sufficient then would be bis duty to
grant such warrant ne necesstes Of the case there
upon The suflcency the evidence up1n the hearing
oner that this Court on fhose wrts Is examine into
me m ss5 oS q s Sa sea nusa before Il fhe
treaty with Belgium provides that preliminary war
non d he fugitive order nat be may Be brousht BE-
tore toe proper aaia a9ngry .q yam m bs. %
and considered nnd Il on sugn hearing the evidence be
am ;, ss pssrr eafvs authority fnat warrant
snr y, ~ ~ 'rr,g@Sar ~ surh fngtftvs Tbe
verified complaint ~ ihis case, made By the
nexed e. y al orginai !, warrant nr ior ne
Tuase Of the tribunal oi Frst Instance Brussels on
ne 2ta o. Apr 1872 y purports q its iaee 70 he
Inc nina's Attorney Dcsrnz rho i4th OCTOBER s7,
~ nas a 3 H. accuse ~ lie Court q Appeals At
Brussels which stas iiat le court nss seen We aoca
Judge The evidence laken pefore he commissioner
The slnu taneou burning otartoes 10 the room where
he died the Smut .aeegs tsaiins from tas
amouat u vsias ias i Il tie accused england lie
session II money u ansand, his previous acquaintance