New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-09-15
The sQgIRE-FLYNN CASE.
JUDGE cHURcHnDs ORDER DISCUSSED.
pIsTRICr-ArTORNEY MARITIME SEEKS TO HAVE IT
VACATED.


Argument on the motion made ty the Dis
rict Attorney TO the order granted by Justice
Churcnili for the animation by OF Rolin
III. Squire and Maurice b. Flynn OF Commissioner Of
Jurors Reilly In regard to the method OF drawing the
Grand Jurors VINO found the indictment against thom
heard by Justice Andrews supreme Court,
Chambers, yesterday. District Attorney MARITIME ap
peared the motion and Richard Newcombe opposed
IL Neither Mr.. Squire nor Mr. Flynn present
Mr.. MARITIME said that the court had warrant In
law to grant suoh Order and ossbiy a. the time
allowed did not fully understand its nature. Tue
court inieht have been misled by tho AFFIDAVIT upon
which the order was askel for That AFFIDAVIT sked
that the Commissioner q: Jurors be directed TO appear
before referee in accordance with the provisions OF
Section ss5 of tina Code. Ii not stated whether the
Code of Cvtl or Criminal Procedure referred
in fact IL was In the OWL Cole that this provision
found. and 1t was not prescribed for proceedings in
criminal Possibly the Judge bad Intended only to
grant order TO show cause but had In fact granted
an absolute order for the OK ANIMATION.
Mr. Newoombe replied that the District Attorney need
have anxiety as to the facts in the mind OF the judge
when ne granted the order. Two days before 1t
granted motion was argued before the same Judge in
relation to tue same matter application to change
the place OF trial My Trend" ho continued, nsed
I've under no msa prenensIon TO tue mse ing OF he
Judge Judge Churchill granted an o-drr TO show
cause in toe first instance: but upon reconsideration
granted an absolute oDer The District Attorney had
business II court upon motion OF this character at
this stage OF the proceedings Tue affidavit was sni
Its race 10 the granting the
under tue section " the Cod which provided that where
person contenpstes the making of q motion. and for
the purpose OF the motion requires the naton OF
Witness order directing II might be granted
District Attorney Martine reiterated tha civil pro
ling tue action would have been regular, but ths- 10
was not in criminal case. to which Mr. Newcombe
pended that Code OF Criminal Procedure
trey silent In regard to tbs method by which the
natiOn OF witness whose testimony necessary
motion might be obtained He insisted that the had
to grant the order and having done the
examined his deposition was redr ced to writing
AMI signed. II any motion was made based upon the
testimony. the District Attorney might then properly
regularity of the order # there app
by defendant for relief then the matter would
not come before the court The people not being a
the proceeding, the District Attorney had no
right appear The witness not entitled to conn
IL oils duty Orev the order OF The count and
eved that somebody wOnld be prejudiced by IL, be
wanted the order vacated and also because fs"ts had
obtained TO what raj taken place IN the oce OF
heCOmmissoner OF Jurors tending to SHOW irregulary
In the selection OF the Grand JGry In reply 20 ques
ton by Justice Andrews, Mr.. Newcombe said that ince
pendsny OF the statute court had power TO require
the examination OF the witness Although be did not
rely solely the provisions OF the Code he had COM
piled with them in the action he la taken.
Justice Andrews intlmated that those provisions re-
lated only TO civ actions aud Mr. MARITIME again con
tended that there warrant for Justice Chuchlfs
Code OF Criminal Fl Occdurs. ard that there
fore II should be set aside. He claimed that notice
should have been given him before the or:er APP
pile for
such and that II the testimony WAS irreguarly
taken presentation upon the trial could be objected
to.
Justice Andrews q his decision.