The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-21

they properly fa ~ the Limits q his and
msstiss to sesiroy spirit party dseounisnance
a and .ss M s.ao
Sometimes. however the judge. showing that
sss y ss
aT 'Is IN a oma
rAnd Jury 20 enter upon term Of ssvce 10 give them
,as, duty As s ss '
par eaiar juror and the ise.'
orrIoE DUTY or GRAND JURORS.
In daily practice the Court rarely the
sss q ssy D.a sss Tor the ss
lined to sens.i outline Of the law which IS 70
ss hs intent Il s when
us TO Just conclusion One Of these il that the Grand
ier9anss Of hsr dulles iias.rais far
lie Is 20 assist ana he is no, otherwise to influence
Or direct them in respee. ?! their hndnr Mr. Davis IL
Jurors remarks that the least attemp. TO ausnes .as
e~ a s4' Is an unjussisaSis iassrsrsne
ysry owe or soms ons 81 ,as
. the proprsty Of finding bill il Is his duty
sssi's' . sssa % st
20 decae independently for themseves Unser these au
snsnags sensia.r..on "a been g ,hs
stop inquire 70 -. il; p0s..s or pr Sss effect, ss,
that Defs being suojscte to the reflection which
R @ ~ i
and Ss q me
held to be good exception 10 grand Juror
tina. he had formed and expressed an se,aion as
presented TO the u the grand Inquest
inss hostility toward such party good esuss q OK
eep.ion Ana urhsr such air ana impartial consider.
bill viii Se auashea fnus, says wharton, where an
claimed great emphasis that n such Irregularities
the OBJECT Of ssir was
citations serve 70 show that the law ~ view o. the secrecy
cused by securing 10 him importantly and freedom from
scrunsng the regularity either 50 lar as to
see that they according the which
he law RsD AuU lis
which goes 20 the remedy Every right" says Bishsp
made . MN I p,.esis.iy .ssaSs font plain
IN that right q which the po.se.,or cannot avail
where wrsEs las been party Who has suffered
Now taking for guide considering oo
said that the Jury BY tho language
which we have quoted Or thar i approached the
aud impartial spirit which the law eontemplates 1t Is
pecialy no affidavit its members denying
ns has been submitted 10 the ease Of pss.
IN nacearate exposition Of the law yet new trial follows
have been misled, rather from the inaoiiy Of
5 70 s.s % Be- laid
before the orand ury but an indictment rs the newt
conceded tina. similar language addressed TO petit
''y wSs II course there IS vast difference in tho
eee, q the given 70 the Two bodies yet on
not and has not tae Of counsel
sUsvxKsoN JUSTICE.
It Is Of course difcu. say where the line should be
that s..sn,.. 70 ne proper dI.Doon present
ment should no. Ss pushed solely because 0'e Of
IN s.ssss.a. instruction ssoa ito law nor
rate opinion as to the effect q svidencs which NAV Se
oas when an appeal BE- al 70 judi
ss . IN .ss ss . o1 Ct
object itself unlawful is an offence that body
or pubic .na
in.suons and susvsrve Of the due adninistra.ion Of
a' ha. We
age Of justice nor even any p,acsea Tor
any case where iad,c.msns is qusshed q. matter
senied and fresh indictment obtained The ais
sssss .a,$ ..:':s:las .assaeA r.
IS charging no sg. offence hs aifaeulty was EVIDENTLY
Ingenious .hai Of any description
struction ut the point In question.
xKws .s NOT oDsrRucrIoss
necessarily an obssassion within the meaning d the law
nf ns do a ss vA ssh be
ancc must become such In particular locality without
s@
anything unusual unreasonable style Of the
the sidewalk Even .hs pesder omitted
obstruction would have been Insufficient for
40 has legal S on the fact, bringing Il
demeanor II not always sufficient the very
S1 o g
So IN. IA the .es At
The statute made il inactabie for man knowingly to
ssi an ar: @sd. 81
m MOI meee e but Il may become se 50 or sos
Of the before stated and in order that the
in The indictmsnt' IL will be observed. too that this
in reality high penal involving forfeiture Of oice and
exclusion ioisys. from once aaasr ths ely
die.ments upon statutes especially the most penal must
Of the offence In the act 50 as to bring the defendant pre-
aUAsHIxo rnx ixpIcrnxsr
follows tina. upon both o. NE grounds discussed the
without in tho iea., upsn the present
4 M nshss e.
auh3rity ana that nseasance ana maeIsance should
poraS, tia. the %senery Of The s%n" law as nos
S sn ys.n n: ss On %Ssn lest S pro
the Wholesome tear Of Indictments be essened Notion
granted
There was pause OF a lew seconds after the
ing OF the decision. Quickly general shaking Of
hanas followed Our City Fathers were never so ira
tsrnaL They shook hands with another and
then with the counsel. The injection spread to
the District Attorney, who shook hands with Prosi-
den, Roberta Ali were loud in their thanks TO tho
counsel Tor the manner which they had conducted
the case.
no xKw IMPLEMENTS.
In speaking OF the quashing OF the Indictment yes
terday Assistant District Attorney Rollins said Ia all
probability new Indictments would be asked tor
In tho last instance the indictments were arzwn
strongly as possible view OF the Law and all ths
facts presented and he thought that new ndic mens
based upon the same conditions would meet a similar
fate Perhaps appeal would be taken 10 establish
precedent
VINO WILL PAY THE HLL9
The question Win doubtless come up as TO who
loot the bill Of the Alusrmcn's couusclf II Is
urged that the CITY responsible for their Costs and
the matter viii probably 10 soon brought before the
Board OF Apportionment. Ia the case OF the Police
Commissioners transfer OF $4,000 Was authorized by
this Board pay Mr.. Field Colonel BLISS, Judge Full
lerton and other lazy Engaged IN defending these
officials from the charges preferred against them by
Mayor Ely. The resolution appropriating the money
was passed by the votes Of Mayor Ely Comptroller
Kelly aud President Roberts Tax Commissioner
neeler voted IN the negative
majority vote will also be required In the case Of
the Adermen,s bill.