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

| The following is the full text OF the decision as
rendered yesterday in she case OF William M.
| Tweed
In the Court Of AppeaIs-Thc People rq William
Iendant IN srroi DAVID Dudley Field. George Com
RfA = op D
INC question of rrsysst importanes which Is TO be
oonsiiered IN mne IS that upon which the jurisdiction
depend, relates g The once and effect writ q
the 5stn,es Of the states regua proceedings gu1er
remedial writ is not The creature Of any statute The
history Of the be oDnr IS lost IN anG pa IL
te US as part Of our inheritance from
he lq W q CT
ssTson shan epriSea NJ lissriy wl,lSas dye
ing virtue ana q % writ sys
As
from the aES n
sae r9 n m 81 ro S m naSe not
add 70 its efficiency, and they have been intended
10 es the c r protnSE M
the ssss q Sna hS S % sa H.
or obey L and and proyaDg for speedy u ana
e :nS FSs4s i a4 ME-
Ss s1ssSs sS$ sui,
respect only 70 the urisdctIog conferred BY statute
Revised statutes regulate exercise Of tins Jurisdiction
s ys BY VACATION as but @ssSfa s%s.'a n0 0ny
Ednonds Id, 5ll, Rev Eotes.l This writ cannot
ochon and cases Within the relief AFFORDED BY Il at com
h Se
q hs ba s Of s %r the be-
even is@pefsTiy except ;alets me
article section = ,h The remedy assnst Illegal ,%prs s
f eomnon Hi law i placed beyond Che pale ciiesaye
discretion except mat it NAV be suspended when public
nad isH ns G tn IS 5s G
OS, and Il canno be nended inst the msmss
Of the Ravisad Sntutes by which the practice OF the
that sS% %h f@S ro@ e s uss
II S$sti SnS% sn Sss
or lessen The vsne the eaicency or the importance OF
tie writ itself which i3 respect q the arlsJcilSn q
the reach OF legislation BrinSing The procedure in
s q Ms1 a. dvs a e s
every court and otcer having power 10 grant writ Of
has and may IN se form BY law all
a m al sS@ me T S SS q s
State as the corresponding tribunal with u.s. There il
oSSsson to be alarmed or to be fshtened out q our
% w been S nssa sS the d
proceedings rendered nugsory far they interfere
win personal liberty he power has existed m many
century Tie laws and judgments of courts have been
tbs writ Of liberty, ana sitnSnsG third q
sn sse cnsa the a :i9Sa'hsf the Gss
lature to the very danger now invoked as
g d
N Sst 81 which HS
have s bs s Sa Sea s States
may when thereunto called sit in Judgment upon the
iuagments eoIlaierslly before hem, Trespas;
% @ P5 By Tlne 's h Gr s6 es @
state III has not Of The Per,on or g
pass upon s tie jurisdiction the aot.gn chances
e DIVERS Rn Srdo or court Il sc
wiou! authority IN the particular case It's judgments
void projecting no one acting under them aud coast
HGS S erS y TEE S TS 81 s%S
Sus S hd s e are rsd
either gyng rlght or furnishing defence the latter
But the Presumption favor OF the Jurisdiction the
nve. i may 6e Te6utied; II Il depends upon the
S srn % AID the court has Ts uPSs
Judgment been reversed aside and THIS rule
sspss CSPSoS5
star;nr IN e spDl,ca;ioH Of t6sss we recognized
y ne writ re q aSes, sorpu, IN
Of judicial proceedings absolutely void Neither should
the 81 TIC tie asSa cssrs
@ sGy iSSii ass
G1 "a e o e
% e 6ee and h c nE @ inc
be the whether the benefit q Il IS invoked BY
sinner and the most worthy Of condgn punishment
no RRsrEcroR or PERSONS
aE o Ks III liberty sn &c ne e % @ md
the writ Of hssoss corpus as Available even TO the
and nc wsO% hs w Sy me
council But the act needs interpretation and in full
% Sis sae and N England and With
uds% or decTs Of tribunal II q o.
criminal Jurisdiction, or BY virtue Of any execution
ciuded from the benefit OF the act q Revised Statues
SS the 81 s Pd dsRSned IN custody P 81 sue
Judgment or decree Or any issued thereon he
liberty BY due u snd
SSs WRIT Applicant from &
~ execution thereon The court in which the Judgment
Or decree Is gycn must have hsa jurisdiction 70 render
render tine judgment ande, some
Corpus act, forbdding the Inquiry BY the cour OF
into ss sSs g 70 o de-
does not and cannot without multiplying in good
nom me court onicer the power relieve him rom
ns duty o. dsisrmnin. whether the process ugmsn
jurisdiction, and whether the making the lndg.
sse;ifadsSsi eSw:r siys ;SsS a$s%:as 4 .snS
iorth speh pr39e ess;.r SIMPLY PROMPTS the re,
he ss'i z the
o. any S have BEEN Sp pro
statute and the appcsnt must &c diseSarsed i tSc
sre Es nT h SGn5 1y s syen
seved car only have relief BY writ Of error other
habeas corpus The inquiry Is necessarily every
having vG s' wit IT SS'r pa
sSSf n. SSs IN ot% s ;PSd
| general or limited must in ali cases be assumed
| to be valid until the Judgment be reversed upon
| error the remedy by writ OF ha5cas corpus
Will be Of but little value The dstinction between
judgments void and those and therefore vol
able Is recognized In all the which
ferred All the eminent jursls who delivered opinions
10 the celebrated CASE o. John Yates in various
phases and stages asreported az r. BIS 10 s2 b
3T and $50; H. s9D affirm the doctrine although they
fered widely In their Judgments in that
but their differences as well az the ultimate decision OF
the matter turned upon the peculiar
case, and do not boar except very remotely upon the
| question under consideration Mr. Hill in his
valuable note % the Mcleod case q Hi $40 has
fully with his usual accuracy cpitomized law
relating TO the writ habeas corpus and pointed cut
the departures under the statutes this State from the
| common law, and
PROPOSITIONS ErUNciArED
by him arc well sustained by the authorities cited in
the note and far applicable the case in hand
may he briefly summed M As well common law as
under the statutes this State the party ia detained
process the existence and validity the process are
the only facts In ISSUE aud the right INQUIRE into the
validity Of the process Is coextensive with that which
Is allowed in actions for false imprisonment. II the