New-York tribune., 1875-09-25
THE HAND AWARD TRIALS.
SEQ. d. LORD PLEADS THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.

AN ARGUMENT UPON LEGAL POINTS RAISED BY |
THE PRISONERS COUNSEL.
[BY TELEGRAPH THE TRIBUSEI
BUFFALO n Y Sept. 24.-Shorely after the open !
ing Of the Criminal Term of the Superior court tnis
morning. x-Canal Commissioner Alex Barkiey was
Hraigned for conspiracy in Buffalo, In November
1874. under the same indictment brought against
Lord Davis and others on Tuesday. Mr.. Barkley
pleaded mot guilty.n His counsel, T. Fish, in
CURED if the persons indicted would be tried sep
Arately or jointly. Distrct-AttOrney Lockwood re-
Piled that he thought they would be tried JOINTLY
but it was a question which there was no necessity
for raising until the case on for trial. Mr
Barkley's bail was fixed at $4,000, and
Charles A. Donaldson of Fultonville, NJ
Y. was accepted as his bondsman for that
amount, testifying that he owned real
estate in Fultonville, in his own name, worth be-
tween $4,000 and $4,000, and that he owed 10
debts.
Geo D. Lord who was specially indicted for
bribery and was arraigned Tuesday last, and who
failed to appear in court yesterday morning, qua not
arrive to-day until afternoon. At the opening
Of the afternoon session OF the court he was present
accompanied by his counsel w. +, Cogswen OF
Rochester and f. G. Sprague of the firm OF Sprague,
Gorham IL Bacon of this city, the latter OF whom
has been retained since the arrest. The case
came up ON the special plea made I'M
der the statute of limitations by the
defendant Nj. COgswen having announced
that they were ready to proceed with the argument
the District Attorney said that as far as he had been
able TO examine the case, he had not found anything
which was not embraced in the plea of " not guilty"
The question of time was one which could only De
properly entertained upon the trial OF the case, ana
before the jury, instead OF on demu rer before the
court and he could therefore see no reason why ne
should file a formal demurrer. The People were
.I,o apd ba M
delay.
Judge Clinton thought as Mr. Lord had entered
nleo OF "pot guilty" accompanied by special plea
made under the statute Of limitations, that the DIS
triet Attorney should now either file a demurrer or
move to strike out the special plea, Whereupon mo-
ton was accordingly made.
Mr. Cogswell thought the motion was equivalent
t. a demurrer. If the plea good IT should not be
struck out, and he anxious TO discuss the ques-
ton, which lie regarded as of vital inter
eat to the accused. The ohense, he said, is
ALLEGED 10 have been committed in February,
1871 and consisted in receiving brbe to influence
the conduct of the department. as member OF tic
Legislature of that year, in procuring the passage OF
an act i'll April 1871, for the relief OF John Hand.
To this the Department has interposed the three
years statute of limitations He then proceeded to
cite tho statute Of limitations, contained IN the
Revised Statutes and laws of 1850 and 1873. Ills
point was that the act of 1850, being the one III
force when it is alleged the oifense was
committed, is necessarily the act which
regulates the time within which the indictment
must be found, and the act of 1873 does not apply
10 such offense. He then proceeded TO cite numer-
ous authorities in support of his position Starting
with the statement of the general proposition by
Judge Denio in the case of Sanford against Barrett,
24th New-York, he commented on the case
of Dash against Vankleeck, that 1t is a
principle of universal Jurisprudence that all
laws are prospective and not retroactive,
OF in other words, that they ere to be construed
as furnishing a rule forfeiture cases only unless they
contain language unequivocally and certainly en-
braciDp past transactions. After many other cita-
tons reference was made to three in the Court
of Chancery and one in the present Supreme Court
of the State Of New-York Also 10 the case of the
people against Van Valkenburg decided by Judge
Talcott last November. The claim was then made
that if this IS not true construction OF the statute,
and it does in fact apply to past transactions the
law is then CT post aco and void. for the reason that
II puts the defendant in a different position with
reference to the ofiense with which he is charged
than the law in existence at the time of the commits
sion of the ohcnse
In reply to the above, the position taken by the
Distrct-Attorney was, that the act of 1873, by
which the time during which an indictment for an
ofense other than murder could be brought, was
extended from three to five years, took up all
effenses lust rs they existed at the time the act
became "a law If the three years had expired since
the commission of the oense, then the criminal had
been forg ven by the State. IL the three years had
not expired, the act of 1878 took effect, and an
indictment could be brought within the time
therein specified, five years. The State had not
and could not make any contract with criminals
and the criminal could acquire no vested right, until
the statute of limitations had exempted him from
punishment BY the act of 1860 the State simply
,ad after three years, if not indicted the oense is
forgiven SIt until such time the ofense is for
given he is liable TO indictment. The repeating act
takes the place of the act repealed in all respects
nnless rights have become fixed and vested prior to
The repeating act or are reserved excepted by it.
Neither plaintiffs nor defendants counsel was
ready to furnish the Court with briefs before TO-
morrow.
Judge Clinton said he supposed it was the desire
Of both parties TO the suit to dispose of the case as
quickly as possible If the briefs could be handed
bin tomorrow, he should be able to form decided
opinion upon the question at issue by next Tuesday
afternoon, at which time he would render his de-
eision The court was then adjourned until Monday
morning when it is confidently expected, the per-
sons implicated iii the canal frauds upon the Canal
Department will be arraigned. The extra work in
the District-Att0rney's Office, on account of the
numerous indictments against persons implicated in
the canal frands has occasiOned some delay, as it
vas not considered advisable to employ outside
Instance for such work.
TIE GEORGIA RISING.