New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-12-14

moanor found I'm the Court of Oyer and Terminer
and all the objections TO the third applied to 10. The
fifth recognzance on an Indictment for forgery
without degree but fell within the category OF the
third recOgnzance. The other two recognnances
were by Mr.. Sands In these the court was correctly
described, and difficulty was ont OF the way.
but No. had been superseded by later Indictment
| for the very cause, voucher OF Garyeys tor
1926, 700 50. The original indictment on which
this recOgnzance was given wa' found IN November
1873, but when arragned on it Tweed had raised
question rs to it's FORM Judge Brady had expressed
some doubts as to il, aud perhaps 10 avoid those
doubts new Indictment was found in 1870. That
superseded the old indictment and the recOgnizance
founded on IT, As to the seventh, for felony, 1t was
founded on an indictment on a keyser warrant,
which had been one of the grounds of conviction ior
Mr. Tweed and therefore worthless On all the
recognizances Mr.. Field presented the following
answer
After the said recognizance was entered into, and on
the 22 day June 1873, the said deendcnt was tiAtn
from the custody Of his said bail and thenceiOith kclt
New-York, having been imprisoned upon an order OF
arrest which stl IN force procured by tue sad
The supreme Court Of the said state which they
plaintiffs, ami the said defendant and Mayor, Aldermen,
and has never since lawfully relieved from the said
lmpr restored TO the custody OF the said D
or brought within their power On the I'm gay o. o
tobsr, 1870 another order OF arrest, wnlch IL sun III
force IN another action IN the same court anu between
the parties, was procured by the said people upon
which the said defendant also held and from whSh
he has been lawfully relieved restored to the
custody brought or left within the power OF tno su
bail.
Summing up his answers, Mr.. Field said
l. After the giving of the recognizanees, the people
took the defendant or the hands Of the ball. MS
ket peis changed their relations to him ami To
the people, ami their ability 10 surrender nun: .eog
uizince contract to DC construed Ike other con
tracts, and affected or discharged IKE them eopio hg
Bartlett Ill., 800 Thus il Is the common practice 10
al
pIisODed on criminal sentences .
There in no evidence Of continuance TO the present
term Of the proceedings, upon any OF the indictments
This IL the term at which the defendant was nlst
required to APPEAR and, being subsequent one, con-
tinnance must be shown rne ball. therefore, would not
be dcIaut for not producing INN at the present ls
Tine condition s not broken and for that reason the Dali
are not liable u,
there IL" such indie ments as are therein ae
scrioed The pretense on which these recogni5anros
must fall.
A. Tue recognizances and were entered into undera
misrepresentation aud mistake OF TACT 1t beinS 5;pposea
by b0tn parties that the indictments mcltipned therein
were Tor matter whereas they were IN iact FOR mat
ter the defenanS had been already eonNietei
sentenced, and punished by Imprisonment. ,.
5. The recOgnz nces g. L. aud are yoic Tor uncer-
tanly, it appearing that there arc six indlctinent to
which Nos and viii apply, and seven To which NO.
g. Tue recognizance No. WAS discharged by the sub
sequont HIDING OF another Indictment tOr the s"no h
ter, this operating Ia superscde tue former
Mr.. Lyon in reply argued that under the law and
practice the recoonzances should be forfeited and
the bail left to their motion before the Common
Pleas to excuse themselves. The prosecution should
not Le put in this summary way to answer questions
going 10 the merits of the IL was well settled
that criminal arrest only relieved the bail while the
criminal arrest actually existed and civil arrest dd
not because the bail criminal arrest had always
the power take their prisoner from the Sheriff ana
surrender him up on the arrest for which they were
bail As to the fact that on five indictments or SIX
indictments only one bail was given the undertake
ing was 10 produce him some one, and no hard
ship had ever been previously alleged and as to the
wrong court it was not alleged that the bail was
msled OF that he could be msled. IL was therefore
a mere verbal mistake, and immaterial. AS to the
supersedure of Indictment by another, that was
q matter which could not take place until all the
peope's rights on the fret Indictment had been
secured
Mr.. Field in reply said:
The gentleman the liabilities OF tho bail were only
suspended while the Imprisonment continued unier The
order OF arrest We aege that ne was never restored 70
tine custody or brought within the power OF tile pi III
the people tou the extraordinary remedy OF holding te
defendant in S300o00o ba which 49, oi c2ease, pei
Anv alteration detrimental 10 the surety dlseharhel tne
surety II his liability Was sspIndisd IN "o Of
their rights They have chosen to take Tweed ont 81 tne
hands Of Dev ana sands uni 10 take charge OF nm
Tens il Is not very hard. when they attempt
e5 S% In oTSss ought @s in their
pcsles. He says the yariances between the huctmet
are immateria Immateral Why there i'd 10 foundI-
ton for q rccOgnzlhce at all lt was prctcnse uoo
which the bail exacted, Gn1 II makes tue thlS nuil
ard void from the beginning. Then the gentleman says
srtu ersededs OF indictment does not lnilc 10 ue
been of the bail. | submit that cannot be the ease
Whatever discharges the principal discharges the surely
Tie statute Is exl1eSs that new indictment
supcrsedes the old.
Judge Donohue reserved his decision, adjonrnng