The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-23
THE TWEED CASE.
ALBANY, March %, 1875.

ALBANY, March o. 1875.
The Tweed habeas corpus case was called in the
Court OF Appeals at a quarter to one O'Clock to"
day. Judge George +. ComstOck, ID. ID. Field and
W. o. Bartlett appeared for Tweed, and District
Attorney Phelps and Wheeler II. Peckham Tor tho
people.
Mr. Field proceeded to open the case, stating its
history
Mr. W. o. Bartlett followed Mr.. Field holding
that the Indictment was never read to Tweed, and
that one Over and Termjner adjourned over the
term to escape hearing 1t read. The Indictment
contained 220 counts and occupied 1,0bO pages.
Alter Mr.. Bartlett concluded Mr.. Field contin-
ned up 10 the hour or adjournment anu VIII con-
Mr. FIELD claimed that the Indictment had been
found On the complaint OF one person. and that
the verdict had been altered by the Judge after 1t
was received. he held that the seventh count in
the Indictment contains no charge OF any offence,
not even an offence against the statute on which
1t was founded when the statute was III force,
ana yet this IS one OF the counts on which the
sentence was specifically and numerically lm-
posed.
The following are the points made by Mr..
Tweeds COUNSEL
Frst--There can be doubt that If the com.
mitment Is not warranted by the Judgment It
fails to show any AUTHORITY ior OBTAINING the re.
lator. Tweed Is IN the Penltentary, and be must
be discharged from IMPRISONMENT under that
warrant; nor can there be any doubt that II the
Court OF Oyer and TermIner had not jurisdiction
to receive and try an Indictment for mlsdemeanor
Without the previous action OF q committing mag
istrate or the Special sessions, or II Tor any other
reason the oyer and Terminer had not jurlsdie-
ton TO receive and try this indictment, then the
court was not competent 30 render any judgment
and was not a competent Court IN this action. IL
the Court had not jurisdiction to render the judg
ment or sentence under which the relator is now
held. then the Court was not competent Court.
SeCOnd-The warrant Of commitment directs
that the relator be imprisoned IN the Pentcntlary
Of the city OF New YORK. me Judgment directs
city ana county OF New YORK. The burden OF
showing that the two places are one rested with
the respondent and he mas not yet shown IT,
Thud-Al the sentences subsequent to the first
were void.
Fou,Ut-He was not liable 10 conviction and
punishment Tor misdemeanor under the second e.
vl5ed statute, COG, section 49, because special
provision had been made for the punishment. WITH
which he was charged
F.trh-Tne jury was not competent.
SiLth-The Court was not competent Court to
try this case or to pronounce any judgment N 1t.
Seuenth-When the reator was tried the fourth
section OF the act OF April 20, lslO-that under
wnlcn he was indicted-had expired, botn by Its
repeal and by the lapse OF time.
Eightt-fhe Judgment OF the supreme Court
should be reversed and the reiator discharged
The following Is q summary OF the points made
rms case comes here upon error to review
judgment OF the supreme Court at a General
Term IN the First district upon certlorari affirm
ing decision oil the oyer ana Termlner IN the
First district, dsmissirg writ OF habeas corpus
sued out BY the reator herein and remandng
MIN to the Penltentary.
The first point claims the writ was properly dis
missed Dy the supreme Court. The second and
thlrd points hold that the relator cannot invoke
the aid OF the higher courts, inasmucn rs he has
neglected 10 comply with the requirements or the
lorty-lfth section OF the act. The fourth point
holds that the Court OF oyer and Terminer, having
assumed jurisdiction OF the case, cannot DC
attacked colizteratly IN this proceeding. TIE nfth
point noids that there was no error III the rejec-
ton OF tue testimony excluded by the courts on
tue hearing. The other points treat OF the danger
oil reviewing questions on haDeas corpus proceed
ings.