The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1885-05-22
For The 1EgiS and Lnte!lgencer.
Judge Dufy's Decision in the Cecil
County Italians Case.

If, as stated in the Baltimore San of last Tues
day, in reference to the release on habeaS corpus
assault with intent to murder, Judge Duffy
pointed out to the representative of The Sun
that as judicial officer he was powerless to do
anything less than discharge the prisoners, under
the law of Maryland as it now stands, on the
ground that having been once discharged on
habeas corpus, the prisoners could not be held
for trial for the same offence, Notwithstanding
their subsequent indictment by the grand jury
Of Cecil county," then the representative Of
me Sun has most signally failed to present the
point to the readers of The Sun.
Admitting the full force of Judge Duffys crit
icism of the wording of our Act of Assembly,
(Revised Code, Article 81 Section H. its appi-
cation to the question at issue depends upon
whether the three Italians were indicted for the
same otfense for which they were held when
they were discharged on habeas corpus. Now
my recollection of this matter is that when these
prisoners were first brought before Baltimore
city judge on q writ of habeas corpus, they were
discharged on the express ground that they were
being held by the Sheriff of Cecil county without
any legal u commitment: l have no means at
stances are impressed upon me by the fact that
the publication of the decision by the city press
was accompanied by sundry slurs at the "prac-
tice in the county courts" and l think the facts
were briefly these: During the session of the
Grand Jury of Cecil eoStn next after
out of the jurisdiction of the court and was said
to be in a critical condition; the grand jury
therefore thought it best to defer action in the
case until the result of the alleged assault could
be ascertained, and so advised the court; where
upon the judge in open court gave verbal order
to the sheriff to detain the prisoners for the ac-
| ton of the next grand jury, and this order was
not accompanied, as no doubt it should have
been, by formal commitment under the hand
and seal of the court. The judge on writ of
haheas corpus decided, no doubt correctly, that
such verbal order was nullity, and there being
| no commitment to show that the prisoners were
| charged with any offense, discharged them.
| Judge Dutfys decision would seem to be that
these prisoners, having been once discharged on
habeas corpus because the sheriff of Cecil county
had no commitment to show how they were held
| and for what otfense, they cannot be afterwards
arrested on an indictment for any offence. If the
| first discharge on the grounds that there was
| no commitment, how has Judge Duffy ascer-
tanned that the Indictment under which they
| were afterwards arrested was "for the same Of
fenSe?"
have no reason to question the propriety of
| Judge Dutfys indispositon Ito discuss in the
newspapers questions which come before him
| for determination in his judicial capacity" but
| the representative of The sun at considerable
| length, his view of 1.-THE law of Maryland as ii
now stands" there cannot be any very strong
| reason why he should not go one step further
and show the relation between the facts of this
case and his Interpretation Of the law and his de-
| cision. If he can show how the discharge of a
| prisoner who is held without a commitment
| can prevent the arrest of the same prisoner
| under any Indictment which charges any indict-
able offence, then surely we will all admit that
the law of Maryland as it now stands is defect
| i've indeed. In the meantime The San, which
| shines for all, and which showed some capacity
| for legal criticism as against the Cecil county
| that its powers of criticism are to be exercised
| impartaly or to point out why the decision OF
Judge Duffy is not obnoxious to adverse criti.
| csm. RUsTICUs.