Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-13

IeCL his DuSiHe6S.
ESQUIRE WINTERS
was then visited at his office. He said he
sent up virtually no warrants TO the Criminal
Court, and it was not his fight He had moth
ing TO say on the matter az all:
ESQUIRE QUIGLEY
who does about four-ffths OF the criminal
business, was called upon. He said that the
attorney general was trying to make another
break and get himself before the public
The Squire did not intend, however, that it
should be done over his shoulders. He con-
sidered il merely one of those bugbears that
General Turner was always stirring up, and
it would wind up as did everything else.
The Squire said that the encouragement
had time and again dismissed cases. He dill
fered entirely with the general about the
case.
The following letter was addressed to
Judge Horrigan by the attorney general yes
terday:
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS LETTER.
To the Hon. L. B. Horrigan, Judge OF the Criminal
Court:
1 have the honor TO report that have carefully
examined all of the dismissed warrants issued by
magistrates of shelby county and mt to the Grim
inal Court at the september term. ISL TO have the
fees of officers taxed inst the county and State
II is absolutely impossible for me TO determine
from simple inspection OF the warrants whetheT
not the magistrates who issued them compiled
with the PROVISIONS, OF the law. find that tie
largest number OF dismissed warrants sent 10 the
September term, 1881 for the purpose OF having the
officers cost axed, were issued by Esquire ?. J.
Quigley; and, in this connection, deem
/ do 9"' not 'u mean to convey the
idea to your Honor that the number OF dismissed
warrants sent forward by Esquire Quigley is out of
proportion the amount OF State business done in
term of the Criminal Court On the contrary, am
free TO say that in numbers, comparatively speak
ing. the dismissed warran from Esquire Quigley's
off vii re W q
magistrates OF the county To-day ID a confer
Wth s b tb Una, ne mas h
understands and CONSTITUTES il, in the matter OF
issuing warrants / recognize Esquire Quigley as
not for moment desire to be under
stood as intmatiug the belief that he
devoIying upon him under the law, but do differ
with the view he holds of the law. To illustrate.
Daniel Good is the husband of Nora Good.
Charles Hendren is the son OF Nora Good by
on the street ar the residence of her husband.
He states that when he met his mother she was
from home. He further states that his mother re-
the arrest of her husband, charging him
with assault and bait ry, and that she
said she feared feared he W9gd f her 6ef0re
wi messed no part of the difficulty between his
mother and her husband, and krew nothipgot 1t
except what he had learned from his motAer, and
all this he stated to the magistrate. He sMore out
a warrant against Daniel Good. charging HIM with
assault and battery upon his.wife, Nora Good. The
Magistrate took no testimony, except the sworn
of Charles Hendren, as above set forth
When Daniel Good was arrested and brought be-
fore the magistrate for trial, Nora his wife, in
trodueed as witness for the State, and she testi
fled that her husband did not whip her but only
told her to leave the house. She fur
Their testified that She had not told
her son Hendren that her husband had
whipped her, and that she did not request her
son 10 have her husband arrested Hendren was
nut on the stand by the State the trial and tes-
tilted that the statement he had Ma de when he
obtained the warrant was all true That his mother
had stated to him just what he had said to the
was mot guilty. and the warrant was dismissed.
Now / insist that the magistrate should have re
fused to issue the warrant in the Good case unless
t. stimony was produced showing, first that a crime
had actually been committed, and second. that
there was reasonable probability that the defend
ant Good guilty OF the same. In this case the
warrant was issued upon hedrsdg testimony
entirely Ny friend Esquire Quigley insists
that he issued the warrant for Good
property / insist he did not, and we submit
the proposition to your Honor There are num-
Der of analogous to this but we select this one
and agree upon tbe facts, to the end that we may
secure the Judgment OF your Honor. If it be de-
termiued by YOUR Honor that on such a showing
as was made in this case the magistrate should
have refused 10 issue the warrant then feel safe
in saving that by common consent we can have in
augurated better system and much unnecessary
expense can be avoided l hope your Honor will
review this whole subject and indicate, by your
Judgment on the matter OF the Good warrant, what
should be done by magistrates as
precedent to the issuing OF war
rants. The system of issuing warrants
should as far as practicable be definite one
and hope to have such understanding in future
as to prevent any complaint from any quarter,
executed efficiently Respectfully submitted,
G. P. NJ. TURNER, Attorney General