The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-13

Important Action in the
Criminal Suit.
THE HABEAS CORPUS DECISION
Both the Verdict and Sentence
Sustained.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIVIL SUIT.

Since tho memorable 22d OF November, 1873,
when William NJ. Tweed, was proved guilty. in the
Court OF oyer and Terminer, of the charges en-
bodied In the famous so called "omnibus indict-
ment," ana IN addition TO paying some sl2, OoO
fines, sentenced to the Penltentiary for twelve
years. his COUNSEL have resOrted to every legal
strategy to lessen the term of his Imprisonment.
the subject OF the hnes being matter OF un-
Important consideration. AS final re-
source, having unsuccessfuy tried almost
every other imaginable means OF rescue
for the unhappy prisoner they invoked the writ OF
habeas corpus. Under these habeas corpus pro.
ceedings The case has been hanging for months
In the courts. There have been motions and cOuD.
ter motions, and AFFIDAVIT on affldavit, like Pelon
on Ossa. 1t is unnecessary to follow the case
through all Its legal tortuous winnings and COM
rlicatlons as at each successive stage they were
fully reported in the HERALD. At length,
In the cou SO of events and characterized
Of course with the usual claws delay" the case
reached the Supreme Court General Term.
There there was a lengthy and eXhaustive,argu
ment. The case was argued before Judges West
brook, Daniels and Donohue. The Court yesterday
rendered its decision, Judges Westbrook and Dam
iels writing the opinions. The Court afilrms the
judgment in the Court OF Oyer and Terminer. We
give below the main points o. the opinions.
OPINION OF JUDGE wEsTBRo0K.
The answer OF the relator to the return OF the
respondent substantially alleges:--
First-That the Court of Oyer and Terminer OF
the city and county OF New York had no jurisdic-
the commission Of which he Was held.
Sscond-Tnat the jury which rendered the yer.
dict upon which the sentence was pronounced
Tndrd-rhat the Court had no rover to punish
more than a. single mlsdemsanor. and con aseo
quently all nneS IN excess or single one OF $3.50
and all IMPRISONMENT beyond single year were
lit gal and void.
FOurth--That the penalty Tor the ofTence charged
In the indictment was fine Of $3.50 only.
Alter neaIing the habeas corpus the Court OF
manded the pris oner. proceedings were brought
into this Court on wris OF certOrarl on the ques-
t:on raised in the Court below, and there deter
mined against the reiatcT, are presented for re-
view and determination.
The relator held by virtue OF the final sentence
and Judgment OF a Court Of oyer and Iermlner.
pronounced on verdict OF jury, rendered npon
the trial IN that Court Of an indictment charging
Upon the trial the Court held that it was proper
and legal TO unite several misdemeanors in one
upon each, and that as several msoemeanors
were, in TACT, joined and charged in the indlct-
could e. and was
against aim Tor each crime Of which he was found
gu lty.
made by habeas corpus. this preliminary question
meets us-"What power had the Court or officer
before which such writ was reiurnabie by virtue
thereof IN the premises S' The office OF the writ
ana the duties OF the otlccr or Court are very
upon The power are stated with great precision.
reference TO some OF the provisions oil the
viii show the difficulties which the reiator has
to encounter in presenting TO the Court the points
upon which be claimed he is entitled to be DIS
TWsi-By section % OF that act Il Edmonds
Statutes, 5s4) among the persons who are therein
WRIT are those VINO are committed or detained
by virtue Vi the final judgment or decree OF any
competent tribunal OF crime or criminal jurisdlc-
ton.
Sscond-By section % e Edmonds, $50 the reti.
ton must state In substance that the party apply
Ing Is nOE detained BY virtue OF any process, Judg
ton 20.
ThfU--By section 40 e Ednonds, 5Ss) II 10
declared to be The duy oil the coult or oh1cer 70
remand the prisoner should II appear that he is
retent criminal OR civil tribunal OF on any cXecu-
ton issued upon sucn Judgment ,oo,
pear that the jurisdiction OF such court or onicsr
mas been exceeded either as to matter, place. sum
purpose The prisoner may be discharged
or officer on the return OF any haze $ corpus or
certIofari shall have power to go into the legality
or jusuce oil any process, Judgment, decree or
the relator Gains that the expression, ''Anv
competent tribunal" cOntalUed IN tue twenty
second section, juslihes the presentation OF all
the questions now submitted. 1t Is argued that
Whenever the anal Judgment orderen was not OF
Court or officer, was competent to pronounce the
prisoner should be discharged
In giving tho statute TINS construction the cOnSe-
quences cannot be overlooked. VIII be argued
that our lawmakers intended that the judgments
OF the Court OF oyer and Terminer, which consti-
tute the highest grade OF coures possessing origi-
nal criminal Jurisdiction, should be summary
reviewed and practIcaIly reversed by any offlcer
Who while he Is IN the Judicial system or Inferior
rank TO the Judge who presldes az sucn oyer and
Termiaer y yes epoweTea 70 o lssSe ans wl
answer involves want OF symmetry In our
judicial system which as RUE provides Tor ap-
to fv IN fn n N
from the incongroty Of which the practice oil
local Otilcer sending prisoner back to Oyer and
consequence, even more serious, would ensue.
Toe otfcsr allowing the writ has no such power,
Bower DOW OF the Court had been exceeded ne would
be compelled 10 open the prison door and dlTect
the criminals to so Tree and unpunshed., Dig our
Legislature intend thls2 1t certainly did II the
position OF the reiator Is sound.
Again. II the position OF the relator is sound.
" hat use to have made special provisions. rs has
been done IN section Al e Edmonds. % y In dls,
cussing the point as to ''competent Jurisdiction"
raised by The REALTORS counsel, Judge Wester-
brook says there seems to DC no difficulty ia mar
monizing the phrase OF the statute.
II We construe them to mean a tribunal having
son the whole act is harmonious. Such a TRIBUNAL
as the Oyer and Teruincr Is harmonious and COM
petent 10 try the questions and the party before
ii. The decisions OF such a body, according to the
whole theory OF our laws, are 10 be reviewed BY q
superior one and not summary disposed OF ny an
INFERIOR officer.
Here = cited to case Of People vs. ;, CosseIs
10 Hin lG4) winch involved the validity Oh CON-
mitment OF witness Tor contempt In refusing 10
answer questions before a Ju tice OF the Pcacol
Toe Application OF the conclusions arrived az
and sta ed above VIII now be applied 10 The
points raised In behalf OF the ielator.
First. 20 the several convictions and sentences
upon single Indictment; second, To the lawiuincsS
oil the jury, and thrd, 10 the several cvnvictloLs
First, the alleged iliegaty OF the several con
vIctions and several sentences upon single indict-
ment. The jurisdiction OF the Court over the
crimes and the person being conceded, what Goes
TINS point present more than the LEGALITY OF the
L.
the very thing which the statute declares the
Court or officer, upon the return o! the writ Is
poweress to touch Our arguments thus Tar have
been uscicss II We have failed to prove that the
ex essiventss Of a judgment (which Is all that
even the counsel claim this point iny0lgesl In .
criminal case eau not he inquired into upon this
proceeding Ample power so 10 do is cX-
pressly conferred when party IS de-
exercise IN q criminal one, where tue c: urt
wnch pronounced Judgment had power 10 try
the offence and render judgment Is forbidden by
IN. reaa dcclaraiinI that The Ita nliicerA