New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-04-26
THE COURTS.
TO BE TRIED IN OYER AND TERMINER.

JUDGE PATTERSON GIVES HIS REASONS FOR
THIS RULING
Judge Patterson, In the Supreme Court Chambers
Yesterday. handed down opinion granting the notion
Of the directors of the New York; Ncviaven aud Hart
ford Railroad Company to have the place OF uial OF
their cases changed the Court Of General sessions
TO the Court Of oyer and Tcrmner. Judge Patterson
dsmisses the idea that the transfer should be made
on account of the high standing of the defendants e
was not governed by that reason at all III making III
decision. Nor did he attach any importance 10 the
assertion that the defendants could not have a. if
trial in the General sessions they could IN the oyer
and Termner The jurymen for both courts, he saws
are drawn from the list and they would be Just
as likely to be affected by public opinion In one case
In the other.
But on a careful consideration he says, of all
there is involved in The Indictment, am satisfied tlat
the cause should be removed to the Court Of oyer ana
Terminer for other reasons and the first IS the nov
city and gravity of the questions involved, and when
must necessarily arise the trial on the demurrer
to the indictment, and which require most serious
attention and examination. on the case as presenter
by the counsel have no hesitation in saying that
these questions not only important, as the us
t,ictA Attorney comedies; they are surrounded with
grave doubts, and l think the defendants are eht'ed
in view of their novelty and Importance and the man
ncr in which they arise 10 have the trial take place
in court presided by one of the Justices oi uie
supreme Court, all Of whom have experience III 'Ie
law of railway corporations, and familiarity WIN u'c
construction of the statutes which require consdera
ton on the trial of this Indictment This will give 10
both sides benefit which, from the general course
and character Of the business transacted In the Court
OF General sessions, might not be available there.
Secondly, l impressed particularly win thc
views above stated UPON a. consideration Of an aTsu
ment made by the DIstrct-AuOrney, who, while con
ccdIug the importance of the question involved ma
argued in opposition to tins motion That tlt novel
doubtful and perpleXng questions aHSulF on ms i'll
dlCtment have already been determined, ana mus
tand as adjudiCated in the Court OF sessions In Wla
was stated by the learned Judge Of that court WHO III
stlucted the Grand jury with rcicIcnc" to TINS coh''W
case before the Indictment was found. 49,.
"On such a contention by the Dl-tl' l-AttorHei
in the Court Of General sessions before indictment
and without hearing, and that it Is bi ding adJu'i
cation il would seem that little argument Is reIuIol
to maintain the proposition that good cause Mao 9't
| shown why the removal to the oyer ana Icihlhe9
should be ordered. The learned judges OF tIc ''I.
Attorney does Of the effect Of the int tions to me
Grand Jury referred TO- but it is sufficient t. y uii
tho defendants In the Indictment, whoever they may
he should not be compelled 10 20 t. ti1u III a ,iuH
in which the prosecuting attorney 'iill9 uIi ~ u
mont urrnn 0ues ions Of law has already virtually
! been pronounced IN advance dIu nc4''c "O'''"r 10
| m is further said in answer To this motion that
delay will be occaSiOncd. AMI the trI must PEE g.
| sarly 20 over. That iS miu" co1~ldtI,' up!' nl'
,,icr Of thc present business before the 'our' ~,
| 6ver and Tornlnrr and It's session think there Wni'u
no no GicuIty in bringing on the trial NJ once I.''
| cour+ is now in session. ana on aipH,iUoH OF u
Dist~iot Attorney would probably De c0nllnu7i
ard recess taken until he car be enabled - prPi.
and present the properly II he Is not fcddy now