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

the Jurisdiction Of the Court Tbs consis,eh ~ 90 sn
10 test The Jurisdiction Of every conr, rnrc.. ~. t
deprive fns eitian 81 bIs liberty and which & eaurey
consie with The sto uses ann s,c,nes ,c OF ,,e
writ aud It's connection With civh merry anu lr' ~
er1i'en, makes II necessary 10 consider the qnesloe
made upon the record Of the CONVICTIONS ana I9nva..
returned On examination VII IT, cnled , 20 ,n r
record We shall NOT Ia 20 back ~ " Tor any nr
pose for by it must the Ii-.iic"n ~ ehaiicns-t ne
trie1. Bearing MUD the distinction be. ween Juu s
merits rely inforInai or erroneous ana thosc Vol" ~
without rrifdiciior, cOy0m nor JHdtrf ,.u
The question Is. had The Couri OF oyer AMI Iermner
The power 10 proncrnee the several JnuSn uis anu AZ H.
The ee,unuaied pun>hmeus upDn the conviction OF the
prisoner OF the ofnscs M charged IN The sinse hJct
mont Whether II error 10 1o In The s1hc lniis,
iueIs corrs for acyc dAtnc ogrn,cs, or whether !hc
Court sioIl have compelled the prosecutor 10 ehel
tween the several counts moi Qucan that can ~
considered upon ibis bearing. They do not 20 To inc
jurisdiction OF the Court aud can oy cgns ~ Oh s' Az
person of the accused AMI of criminal ofcnse commit
ted within the County Of New York ana ngecsodlp ',u
inTislcfun To pass non lne form AMI suicIeney o. ire
indictment and thc order and eaisc of the trial. ana o
eide que sfiOn that arose In H. WVi
the determinations of the Court upon auy or oil OF i,e
question, were ii Cht id not a!i'at Sue Jnlsc-
ton In other words the Court lad Jurisdiction 10 hsc
wfonr as well as fia DECISIONS in AL the Stages o 'hc
prosecution, and whether those made were nrht OF
WrODg cannot be raised Oh hdOeds ccrPhs Inc I'm
unnecessary consider 10 much detail or ~ MI eN
cepJ ~ they may incidentally aid in tine consideration OF
the question actually presented, those case "a "u nc
mas been ~ 20 the pro- Iicty o, uniting for inc
rur1,osrs of trial several indictment ana
The duty the Court to compel tho prosecution 10 eeC
Wien distinct oienses are 90 charged. In Theory. every
count in an Indictment Is foT distinct ohensr; nl
in fact rs Is very wen understood. in most cases
several counts are resorted 10 and the oieiise
stated Ia different forms AMI with different oIruus'dn'
meet the eyd that nN he adnLcS upon thc uIi
The class M cages m which indictments character
haye come under review have no poSsici. peains
upon the questions before In no event coDld mere pe
in snch cses but n e punishment and that Tor the
one ofsc charged in different ways avoid injection
for variance
LEGALITY OF CUMULATIVE JUDGMENTS.
But there arc oast which reference will hereafter
he made in which distinct Offences have been joined in
A.. Italia anf and Inc mol
been held error How far justify cumulative
judgments aggre,tlg in Of that
srribed law for the specific aie OF oil nses ch9r:t
will h. 1ns,lerVd in another connection II T. safe 10
saw however that these cases necessarily warrant
the conclusion that conviction Ter ,teiai ohehsS
thus charged Is thc equivalent Of several sepre con
victiona uron disfnct indictments. rs authorizing sev
eil distinct jndm,ns. Reference Is made ana s''c,7
laid upon the stntues OF this stare q H. - 700. = III
directing tina, upop the conviction OF rerso OF two or
more oifpnscs. before sentence SHAH have been pro-
nnnnee mon him for either the imprisonment ~ which
he snail be upon the second subsequent con Nc
tiun shall commence M the termination or lt WN or
second term of imprisonment. the may be-. this
statute has respect TO separate convictions distinct
trials, neither atrns nor disiiirns ne pracce pu
snei in FMS case and does not sustain it by Implication
OF otherwise. Thr Legislature Ind in their minds :v
IDENTIFY cow Ctions 1T different times. ana cases III VIM
in ,ne,f m mi be prnlo nced upon conviction be-
fore others were iic-ihGt il. convictions upon MI
pendent trials upon distinct indictments M me sane
fern of the colr or before should be pro-
II is to suchrases and such only that the statute has
hitherto been deemed applicable Ii cannot he regarded
authority for he nrcceaure tc and changing
the law and ii II intended the courts have been very
ses fxlan the reason for Recommending ia adopdcn
and il il merely Ia guard against possible Omissions ~
the form OF sentence usually at thnt tnr pronounce w
the class of cases mentioned 70 r. =, Ein0nS Ed 800
PrerCdcnts for the practice provided of ~ h staue
thus understood have been very familiar in this sta'e
bur AM nor aware there we're any for te pr;ie
OF ecyer: judgments. each for the extreme p.aaliy OF
the law FOR each 81 several ohen>c> charged Ill 'e same
Indictment, and upon "a stu lie cOnNIc'ioh'
AUTHORITY OF TIE T1CHBoRNE CASE.
The Tchborre case claimed he direct authority
for tic conviction and sentences in the case at BAR Itch
borne was convicted upon trial before Lord Cheius-
tce Cocburn and his associates of two distinct acts Of
pcrury upon separate counts in Indictment and
fenced upon each transportation for te OF
year, as Tor dscDn ected Olclses. and II ~ rai that the
lime named is the limit OF punishment upon
single conviction for the CRIME charged But IL IT 10
shown there conviction TOf two 0Icscs Which, ~
this STATE, would BE- feouie' on The SAM tllil when !,
authoritative evidence Oi tho law win u@ Ii Il enough
the Judgment and whether II was authorized ny some
value we know. BE that a. il may, The Judgment
ha moi received tb Iellbetyc sanction OF any court in
hauc and has not rpenci into precedent even IN En-
gland If is ut most nut evid of what Tie common
law is n now ndnin >tercd in that country but evil
dence what 4; On tie lJth OF APRIL l1'3. .
mrnt - dcnariuie from the ancient orGcce. Lord
Deminan SAYS in OConncl ag QHecu II Col. and Fin,
800, that Old tines the indict ment consisted OF
simple count and il May b. asserted thai this - ur IN
the words of eminent counsel ID u bIrf IN another
before me. this device of c?tng manf counts 10
avoid variance did moi chan 20 o law governing Tie
i'm ~ mny different ways rs may DO deemed exrediert
lf cannot instead the accused eTnbqrT'ss him ia hi.
defense, or expose him H. accunulaicd ptnisimcntS
But the rule as now recognized extends tAe. than ts
ard different misdtmean"rs may, II Is SAID, ana
with IL snow Of authority, bc found in tao same
indictment AID tired al tn. same tine, me.
affecting substantially the rights OF persons accused 81
crime mainly for its sanction upon tue more mod
practice of the courts aud Inc extent q" the chhse
thus made III the law eau only be certainly known rs
reference the in wnch the questions have been
adjulcated, md ascertdning the pIin pes upon hich
they Ii tIcie could Dc hut one punishment "a Ior
sugle misdcmeanor, Irrespective OF me nliinpcr OF
ccnscs proved, and Of when ne shnd be conFc!cd ny
the verdict the Jury although he mi ht he embarrassed
in his defense and prelndieed with tLe jury the Court
could possibly that no greif harm coult
come to the accused 10y joindcr OF or.nses.
II the rule has tins limit then there Is reason oi thc
limitation as found IN the books, that to authorize a
jOnGer Of different ohen,e5 they must ne oil the sne
grade and rgre the sane Judgment u lud 1aents
NAV be dstgi6nyc and cumulative II 8 dimeuit 10 zee
why there should be- an identity rs - tb'r chafactr
AMI extent Of puusmnt STATUTES have been ncees sIy
To permit Oenses OF different degrees and requiring uii
fcIcnt punisments although rcing 10 the same sub
Jet matter 10 be joined II Arch Cr RI aud FL - !;
ZANE as People ., W. D. 2OJ; Peopc~'st' "isA' D. iD'
80 WARRANT FOR CUMULATIVE SENTENCES.
have thus and at greater length than would orin1-
ry deemed necessary referred to the several eases
cited from our reports, and 1t VIII be seen that no
warrant can found in any OF them in any remark
casual or otherwise by any Judge for cumulative pun
ishuent upon conviction OF several ofcnses charged in
a inglc Indictment the aggregate pun sam mt exceeding
prescribed by law for te grade oI oeHses charged
The rule as claimed by Implication, calls for single
iudglneIs for all the O',nses charged in the Indictment
ANA OF which accused l. convicted. II requires that
The oiemses Joined shall h. OF the IRA c aud he sD
icct TO the same pinishmcnt-tba is not only punish
Inent the same in kind, but the in degree.
THIS can only be important, to the end that sin e Gdg
rncnt equally applicable 10 each of the oreDses. may
all, and sentence the inaxlinn of which my De
lawfully imposed for cacG II several judgments may be
given upon q single Indictment upon conviction for
several disconnected oinses, and the punshDclts mag
be successive and cumulative, there IA good
why the oenses Joined should be OF the grade
subject to tie punishment Tor the Cour. might so
Impose the sentence Tor the respective ohenses that each
could be fully carried ont without interfering with the
ofLers prisoner convicted several misdeeanOrs
which different penalties prescribed might Dc logged
for one fined second and inn rsOne fora third IL the
toc;rne commended Tor by the prosecution be main
tanned, The qualifications OF tine rule that the joined