New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-16

danger to the accns and ea1 never be done Except o ,
rights Of accused Of crime 20 The extent OF SECURING
TO thsn, by every means fair ana imparai .,'a ~ "
Jury of The country and protecting them against con-
v,fon under the iorns of law but without an Observance
Of and adherence ~ all the forms and r,es OF law 9ae
lated 10 protect the innocn bui Y the practice shonu
I've regarded firmly established that IL cihi", ~ re-
formed except By tine Legislature the result OF disS ,
judgments 9pd cumulative pun hnnihs uo'' no' o"'"
legally. logically. or necessarily.
ENGLISH DECISIONS AFFORD No PgEcEpENr'
Reference will be made to the reported decisions IN
England In which il is claimed the foundation was iau
not only for the jonder OF several distinct rsdeeah"'s
I'm one Indictment hut for cumuaiivc sentences or pun
snnants; but II Is quite evident that there would prop
ably he no prrcedents Of cumulative pmshments each
10 fbe allow Oh by w they were InPoss
H. punishment for nsdeueanors Is, general rile
discretionary with the Court IL hlSseit on 'rlmeS, tt
Met cb Isl rs the Court could in al cases. upon
connection of more misdcnieaiors W g, Su'n uus
Incut and impose suoh pushlenf az " sivu - u'on
pro,, ANA apportioned to the crime or crimes charged
Cumulative nlcnce each MY oNhaus ing Tue &
| oneuse, could not be imposed rs tnrro ~ no
such limit aud cases ia England within this rur ana
tho sresent Judgment The doctrine is mid 10 have pa
lis 9gp ~ an s1pIe,s9n go ~ hos sae3f Of he DE-
eiscn in against Cierdon. Strangt $50, IN w"Iea
IL ad ae, held that an aslult coz two people could not
lc o.Ge,l in the Indictment Lord Maisne'd housi,
this no, tu be the law aud said " Cannot he kie can
mnp TO account Tor breach % the peace because he
| broke two heads instead ~ onef .
tbs remark suggested rule, whether sound or nor,
com,d net in any sense Justify ire jciukr Of dts
tIpot oifcIises committed az different tunes II
tue same pdfim SSnsc conmit,s ss against
two mora persons, tore nay D, H"d lrrs o vi;
twice punished FOR what IS Ia suslce but one on -
,ri,ls 1i3s IL NOT an authority Joining distinct of
fclses Indictment IL IL an authority LOT sen
iance OF nv, ~ am inpoment npom
rrior conviction To- which the practice OF TINS the op
| formed anl il now as we have seen, sanroheu y
siatete. report of The SHOW that cie "eIetwo
Information for ib.l, sL!bei in ,chae tina. term,
1854 for u seitipu- and scandilos publication ID me
horh itpn and the other exhibited soon ineiede, Io
an ooseele a9i n,'inn7 10y ON Won@; cacn
and separately sentenced for each' gee BUTT
Erx AIT Jones q Camp 231) f. a'si pras decision.
| Tile prisoner Indicted ior frauds committed ~ nm
as aCounissaryG eucal. AMI the question vas %hether
the prosecutor c0i cyteucr OF part III the sans
which the defendant had illegally oh'ahd nn'nf or
aud OF tine residue under another, and It was h.d
that he conh. Lord E.enborvugh SAYS: see not the
sii satest objection 10 o'iencc o various ae OF ldS
committed by tie defendant ia his ONCE "l tohhiaau!-
! General, though charged under Inherent counts as
distinct and Substantive mlSlcnltanofs' u -
quitc evident that convictions and separate pni-i-
mem. tor distinct olenses were not IN the min of
The counsel Judge II Is authority Tor the admission
OF distinct acts charged In different courts TO proVna
single crime; vii, IIaud ana peeu1ton in Ollie we
referred - the RESPONSES ~ the JUDGES or Ens"n 10
in tie case OF OCnneii. reported i ill., and Fin lJJ TO
izG TIE verdict N that general upon all the
counts Of the Indictment ana Ike general Jg,h 1
passed agains the accused upon the Ne'dief "i,hoH' az
were Dad and the Judgment reversed Tor that reason
Tlr con.cnnon wa. whether verdict and judgment could
taine !. 1Ic learned judges discussed seria'n1, and
az great length, the practice IN trdi, 81 lh'ici-
10 iaindcr crdsnc offences on the twoclasies
Of mlctments. But sdil nothing v as definitely deter
from concurrent opinions az the judges dt WI ana
s in pa s.ing non the question pre- n'n - .s roP'i.
, e ~ nr .,, s"e cG,se Is limited by statute ana not
Ais ION al
uplrr an indictment consisting of several counts OF
several oiieilses, distinct and d-tributye sentences
c,n1 he i'm ,,d for ne different convictions under the
! res ,cciiye counts winch would aggregate y pm,
isninent in excess of that prescribed aud limited
! nv satste ior single ohense tha., Is thai
tne scyeiI ri e n SDrntu 70 sfot"ie be i'm,
posed upon conviction nder an, one OF thf fo's:
opinions must D. ~ at ana ihit.pic"N was "n,,'i ,'
verdict Judgment could b. Applied 10 Inc s"oi
aud anus sus aimed. There was clearly no exec
siye punishment over thlt Whc1 m'Sl nav ocV' III,
h.rcd upon single conviction under Any one OF 'he
counts IL NAY be conceded chat expressions are n,,
b. OF tue ndg's authorizing an inisance ma, 'i ,
punishment IN the asgegIe upon s,'yei,l coihs l,;r,
cont, 40, which eomld nv law, bc indicted upon 4 sige
for single ocise. ioi ~ Ii mo- :" s'd III
terms. certainly j. not ana coutt not nave pe'h 80
d,cid ard tic judges not called M n To- ana dt
any nterrcgatory whca would resolve mat
pocst"h
srATt FPS AID COMMON LAW.
In Mass lc.nclts there is similar statute, with The
additional provision that successive CONVICTIONS may De
hl limiting the aggregate term of imprisonment under
any one indictment tSta;ntc OF 1851, On. irll In
Tl,lanI various statutes have been enacted from time TO
time which would nave been necessary had the rule
of r common Law DE II ~ claimed bJ Tue r"Iho cou
sci ior thc prosecution Without referring to others
rni,rs TO motto, ii ana II Wet Gu 100, g. rs. which
ln,s IL lawful To iilsrrt several cVins IN lhc same IN
.n,i,st ne IN mo po~son for any number OF dis
urt aols o stealing not exceeding three, that may have
been committed by aim against t.c slime person "ltLl
the space OF SIX months aAq TO pose'n r. sdGPa
Cr III ana Pr 10th Cd. p. 65-7s; GEO !, p - : 1sJ
assigned ~ the courts III Ensiandior per
nil JIM. the jOinr ~ distinct mis'leineanCr while II -
ds,llowcI in felony, that npon trial iorlcloy the
accused has the Snt on efenptorl ciaiienges when
not given trials l0T ns neanus. Io@ilcN aJu!ndcr
OF different frlones in the same Indictment would de-
piye ne prisoner ci sohe 81 Tue eA'ehses hloWou NY
Law Whic consequence would not result Dy Ike JOiadcr
OF mis- with us the reason does moi ca
Isl i0r Distinguishing between lrones ano nis'i' 'H'"rS,
as p,rcptury Challenges are allowed on trials for both
ca OF 0as or E ns psrSa H Win i S6 S
/ in the state Prison Tor ten years or longor'
entitled i've pefe Ts s,a Gne''c Eve;
one puT ria for insd meaner III Court OF oyer
and Trrmner the right Ia cnacrge perempol1y tve OF
persons drawn rs jurors for sueh trial ~ uniting
go distinct msdlmeanors in one Indictment, the ae-
entitled to 100 crempory challenges or is deprived OF
the night in respect T. 2l3 Of the oIess for which he Is
number, ino proportion OF challenges allowed,
OF which the accused IS deprived is only chnsei. The
d.llowed in England because the prisoners right of
challenge would be reduced, and the same result fol-
lows joinder OF Tisdemcanors here, and the pris-
The or the distintion netween felony and mis-
doincnols in this respect in EnSland would forbid the
join Ter OF distinct nisdemeanors Ia the same Indictment
prior TO 1917 the right OF peremptory challenges on
trials misdeneanOrs was not allowed In this state,
and hence dcia apparently contradctng the pFac
tee found in reports prior TO that time. may well
have followed the English cases. Tho necessity Of th.s
lcgi station shows that the true rule of the common law
does not cOunenance the Practice aud the Judgment in
the before Us. have examined with some care the
courts In this State and Of England to which
! have been referred, or which have come under
my observation, and l lind no authority Tor hold,
ing that the common law as 10 existed in England
in april 1775 it exists and Is administered in this