The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-10-05
LIPPINCOT4'S WRATH.
Walls Of 1t Poured On
Smiths Devoted
Head.
MERCY AT A BIG PREMIUM.
Men Who Become Security for Bal
lot Box Suffers Must be Pre-
pared to Take the Con-
sequences.

Judge Lippincott this morning deliv-
cred written opinion in which he said
some plain truths, and made ballot box
suffer Smith very unhappy. His opin-
ion was as follows:-
HUDSON COUNTY SESSIONS
The State VS.. John p. Murray, Thomas
E. Smith, ct ais. On Indictment for
conspiracy, &c.
The defendant, Thomas e. Smith, was
with others indicted for a conspiracy
against the election laws of this State.
Upon that indictment he pleaded not
guilty and gave bail for his appearance
for trial, his father, Bryan Smith. becom-
ing his bail. This was over year ago.
being fixed for that time some three
weeks prior to that date of which time
SO fixed defendant and his bail mad
ample notice. A day or two before the
trial the State was Notified thar the de-
fendaut was sick In the Catskllls and
would be unable to attend.
At the time of the trial the Prosecutor
moved that the recognizance be declared
forfeited. on the ground that his absence
was without excuse ana Wilful. Inc
Court heard affidavits on the motion and
came to the conclusion his excuse of sick
ness was false excuse, and that his ab-
sence was voluntary and wilful (see am.
davits on file), and granted the motion OF
the Prosecutor that the bail be declared
forfeited. Such an order was entered, ana
on the motion of the Prosecutor the
recognizance and forfeiture was certified
to the Circuit Court of this county for
prosecution, and the trial proceeded
against the other defendants.
The defendant did not at any time,
previous to October inst, appear before
the Court in the matter, and has not up
to the present time presented any facts
IL. a. %hn ruh oh
either justified or excused his non-ap-
pearance at the trial. On October l he
appeared in Court and desired to sur
render himself. The Court, upon its at
tention being called to the case and to his
presence in court by the Prosecutor, or
dered him into the custody OF the SheriH;
His bail then moved that the former bail
he discharged and cancelled. and his
father, the same bail, again offered HIM
self as bail for his further appearance.
The Prosecutor opposed this motion and,
as representing the State, declared his
disapproval of such cause OF action. and
that he was entirely unwilling to relin-
quish the recognizance and have 1t dis
charged, and that the interest OF the
State required that he Shonld oppose the
motion. The Court approved OF the course
of the Prosecutor and so far as 1T became
necessary TO act, denied tne motlon
to discharge the bait
On October 2 inst counsel for defend
ant again moved, the defendant being in
custody, that the surrender be accepted
in discharge of former bail, and that de-
fendant be discharged on new bail. The
Prosecutor. upon being called by the
Court for his position In the matter, also
made the same motion, tnat the surren
der be accepted by the Court. that dis
charge of bail be made and discontinue
luce OF the suit on the recognizance be
Allowed. The Court has held the matter
in advisemept until this morning This
Court feels that in the exercise OF its
cent administration OF Justice. 1t
cannot grant this motion. No single fact.
no single circumstance, has been pre-
sented to the Court to induce this
action. 1t appears to the Court
to tain 0e the reease pea at ''e' the eefsndans ant
and his bail, from their responsibility,
and for him to do this, and TO enter into
new bail, and have the Court accept.
would, in our opinion, be farce, for II
this action is taken now there is no assur-
ance to this.Court that it will not be re-
peated at the very first opportunity. 1t
seems to the Court TO be an acute and
easy method to get rid of trial and of
financial responsibility to the State, and at
the same time to have perfect immunity
from its consequences. The first attempt
at least to try criminal case wonld al
all that the defendant need do to
escape trial, and the bail to escape re-
sposibility for the defendant, is to do over
again exactly what they have done. If
no reason or excuse Is needed now, none
will be needed then.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
In the absence of constitutional or stat
utory enactment In this State defend
ant would be held in actual custody to
n IA n n ri w Uhfoh tho
statute requires shall be speedy one;
and even want of proof OF the commission
of the offence will warrant in law bnt
slight delay. By constitutional provision,
a defendant before conviction is entitled
to have his liberty on bail. This does not
signify that the defendant can wilfully
forfeit his bail. and then renew it as Of
ten as he desires. He is admitted by the
Court TO the exercise of his constitutional
rights-that is personal freedom, subject
to the condition of his ball. that is that he
snail at all times be present for trial.
This he wilfullY fails to do: he cannot
again exercise the right He has lost the
absolute right. He, after his wilful fail
Nure must rely at least upon the discre-
tion of the Court, IL admitted to further
bail If he still retains the right, regard
less of the discretion of the Court, he can
exercise it In the same manner ad infini-
tum to the utter discontinue and failure
of public justice.
His recognizance, when forfeited, was
in the nature of Judgment against him
SO far as bail is concerned. It admitted
of no further plea, no further BAIL The
State had the right to take him into GUS
todv for trial. The result of that trial,
whether Of guilt or innocence has no
legal effect upon the recognjzance. The
result mi<nt operate upon the discretion
OF the Court, before which the recog-
nizance upon terms or serve to limit its
enforcement. There Is also In the mind
OF the Court, a grave question whether
this court has any power over the release,
discharge of or discontinuance of the
proceedings upon the recognizance. The
court is bound to say that the prosecutor
does not have absolute power in the
premises, and as the recognizance has
been certified by this court, and sent to
Circuit Court of the county for prosecu-
top, it is quite difficult to see how this
court has any right, or authority, to di-
rect or consent to surrender in dis
charge of bail.
Assuming we have that power, we.