The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-16

Den 20, decides that on the trial Of an indictment Tor
selling liquor without license the Drosecutorcan only give
evidence q as many distinct offences there count
and on general verdict o. guilty nne. single pun
shment was But for the error in the a..
case Is not authority tor cumulative punishment Pep
tanning the signature d one John Ludlow 70 an iasT1-
bss n II % Ss % two SG s e6sn
The Court merely IN answer 70 the objection that the
the %o counts G h s Was u 'ss' the
discretion q the Court Of General Sessions and assert
generally mat defendant may be tried Mt the same
mo different offences charged in the same indlct
to the same punishment 'N''ss'
hye hgS ana a. greater Length than would od
cited from our own reports and it win be that
casual ~ punish
ne s al gsssae n
ing dat prescribed by law for The grade Of offences
ssii. Tor single ISSdsmgns; al
oh tile /, Convicted Sas s
Joined shall be OF the grade and be subject
the same in Kind the same in degree: This can only
apple bile to each Of the offences may cover ali and
sentence the MAXIMUM Of which may be lawfully i'm.
spon single Indictment upon conviction FOR several
disconnected offences and the punishments may be sue
the offences Joined should be Of the grade sub
impose me sentences the respective offences that
saeh foad BE uy arss ST SSes e
manor for Which Serent psnaes we're prsseTSs
oned Tor rd III the the docne 10
81 the rule that the joined oences must Be equal IN the
law subject to the same punishment has no foundation
eases the maximum punishment which the law permits
@ onee Of whe the
oner convicted according TO the demerits OF each tho
loved By law for , single, offence Of the o same
illegal that sao person. crime may Be
tried upon one Indictment for several aad distinct
claim With great plsasSiy and show OF reason That
9 fe e @ ts a not q Ss
iished and that It ought not TO be- Icannot do better
TIKI nE.rT Or Nm osoNoa:
ees
ton ana tue arguments in support Of II and which
after referring the analogy between civil actions Tor
ngy except under some Statute EXPRESSLY auhorsing
qcn II has been tho practice % allow two
By Indictment or penal action y s Bsides lie con-
ON" time Tor ones would SScVo the accused
stcn a practice, If tolerated, would break down and
only Ss ssS,s;Sll.se% sssSns ~ is
putaon OF the accused SHAH not be offered TO strengthen
he proofs AGAINST him: That ether nisdeeds shall not
well known 70 the law II the public prosecutor or
'sar person trial Tor every delinquency imputed to
@ y sR %s 'sGG s anaer ono Tho weight
s Saaanos tho s sna It.
the sole cause Of any miss pprehenson concerning this
opinions Because there may be- many counts In an
luQlcluenl OF edCu Do
distinct ANA different transactions occurring At diGoron
times and places and constituting many different
offences may be given in cvids ON the trial Of an in
not Sufficient g establish K The learned counsel with
noe 70 tho brief and shows that his position Is not
opinion. His arguments appear to mo nsnsverabIe,
The nc s Of s tim. man On s qr asngSr
to the accused, and can meyer be done except
of those accused TO the extent
ing to them by every mesnsa fair ana impartial trial
Conviction under the forms of law but without an OBJ
law eaicuiated to protect the innocent; but ii the prac
tce should DO regarded SO firmly that It cam
OF distinct judgments ana cumulative unihments does
NOT S 81 maHe to tho reported decisions IN in
which it Is claimed the foundation was laid not only
Indictment but for cumulative sentences
but IT'S quite evident that there would probably be NO
measure allowed by law as they were imposed IN the
punishment for msdemeanors is as general rule, dis
eretionary with the Court q Russell on crimes 4th
Wet, CHI 49, the Court could in all upon
JUDGMENT and impose sucn punishment as il should
deem proper and apporiioned to the crIme Or crimes
the statutory power OF the Court respect to single
iimt' and cases in Enalsno within this rule and
form Of punshmeni woga give no color or support t
its origin in an EXPRESSION Of Lord Mansfield IN Rex
SION in Rex vs. ciendoI Strange, So in which it mad
been held that assault two people could not be
t1is not be the law and said Cannot the King cali
tor Of o. Is ppsSe
gested rule whether sound or not which has no pos
sense justify the : = - : - =. - =
indisi@snt it BY Z single ,,, act ike :
two p there Ss sGG% WY hey
SSs Ss o n but e
Rex vs. Wilkes Burrows SoH :: u ~ How ~ Trials
one a1 i an
uP9n 70 pe At
sen 10 WheS the praees Of this so
n % ne ssys S y
lions for libel one exhibited In Michaelmas term l764
S anu Inc ohsS sxhSod soon there aor for an o.
sRs 81 On %a
snd was SEPARATELY Ssn ENC ior eaen, sec snrr
from conviction upon an Information tor libel contain
Tg the prisoner q be two months on each OK
tho counts the mprisonmen on each after the first 4?
on the next count INC third was held dSoc
the fourth count was not thereby invsdsted as com.
mencing in future but that Il was 70 be COMPUTED from
No other aae shon raised decided Whether the
Ss Inc pumt Was not IN e9cs
might Ssys been
twelve calender months Tson each eS for Ike
S Snss TSss Stated dsca
bet one transaction was under investigation upon the
passed upon the prisoner 70 the obJeetioE made
Lord Kenyon said the objection wond be vel found Il
the legal Judgment on each count was different IL
wouldbe Ike misIoindeE n civil actions but 10 this
the Judgment all tho counts Is precisely the
same. misdcmcanor is charged on each. Most prob
ABLY the charges meant 20 cover the same facts
but Ii Il were not so, l think they may be
Joined IN The same indictment With him the other
iuiges agreed Justice Butler states tho practice in
way which would prohibit trial for distinct offences at
the same time. He says the face OF the Indictment
every imports TO be for different offence and Is
charged different times and II does not appear on
the record whether the offences are or arc not disnct
IL IL appears before the defendant has pleaded or
the Jury CHARGED that he y 70 he tried for separate
the indictment lest Il would confound tne prisoner in
his def prejudice him In his challenge OF the
Jury; for no might object 70 lurymans trying
one OF the offences though he might have
are only matters Of discretion. Tho case gives no
counenancc to the doctrine OF cumulative Dunshments,
bat by Implication Is adverse to Il. King Va Roberts
fectiye, too general and not distinctly stating
single offence. No other question was before the Court
aud nothing else was decided except that the udgment
ncienty stated on The inioTma.ion am unable e DIS.
~ the argument Of the judges Applicable 70 this
Nothing aald In disposnR Of the demurrer there that
the bearing the question before