New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-27

courtroom after the proceedings in the Suther- /
land case. declined to make any statements
POINTS N JUSTICE CULLENs OPINION.
Justice Cullen in his opinion. reviewed the .
grounds upon which the defence built their. .argu-
mcnts for the issuance Of certificate Of rca-
sonable doubt. His views were expressed mainly
in technical language. one point made 10y him
was that "the law recognizes difference he
tween the offence of principal in the first de-
gree and the principal In the second degree both T
are equally guilty If the defendant
sion of the offence he could have been convicted
Of the crime BY section - of the Penal
Code the distinction between accessories before
the fact and the principal is abolished, and all
are made principals.
Justice cullen took UP the second objection.
which was that the defendant could only be con-
victcd on charge Of mis6emeanor under one
section cf the Penal code referring t. the loss.
mutilation or destruction Of the registry lists
or COMES and not Of = felony
The Court contended that while the difference
in punishment is great, there was no inconsist-
encv between the two positions. nor docs il
necessarily work unjust severity 10 the de-
fendant on the subject OF the offences alleged
to have beer committed by the inspectors he
referred to the fact that the indictment charged
a single joint offence of all ana sad mat the
objection could not be sustained unless ii could
he established that as "A matter OF law TIE Of
fences of the inspectors were several W ME
each inspector is To retain list or copy the
duty of the inspectors is not wholly several
sr.srA1Ns JUSTICE BARTIETTs CHARGE.
Then turning his attention to the charge made
by Judge Bartlett, he said:
It is sufficient to say that the charge was 50
satisfactory to the 1eiendant 'hat ~ rb Chars
counsel withdrew al oo)ectlo5 /, ]" N ci, Cl'lS
was as aoso.uteE Jus q, lG iIr ~, liz in his ,'.b
as as can n o7 con,n1ain Of possible naccuracies which
would have been rcmedied had the attention oi the
Court been called To them
,, ~ i ,,,
Justice cullen grouped the all'EeI eII"iS ~ !" 1 VIZ
admission Of evidence into several claSS.S' ana
dWcIl on 'he "''H =" Niy IUl' ',,,,,j1 " ,hat Nr
lloh .l 'llr5v i,.i's' ~ t,,t We've win Nr
&rou, th d" teeni"na '' was admissible
and he also asserted that the evidence oi Nc Nc
Kane tendeu 10 oS'"pn'" , VIZ th I',y'rsoti'n
mith Mr. Grout. The Justice referred 70 the
/ fac, that il was reiterated again and again
! that the Court intended To- cohhnr 'nr
s%leE L. ir s ~ th. siry lists
on the point raised by Nj Roicrck bearing
on testimony to the effect that when d S-' wee WEE.
was made on one Of the inspectors a paper WAS
also accepted addressed to the defendant, the in
sIcctor. as alleged. stating to the srv'r mat
! w. ,v,ild deliver the documents - McKane. jus
. .i' "ci,, said. ",rhc record fails ID show what
uCg o",,.n ,a'l.. i th. Conrt thereon ami no
! ruIlhS ""S "", 'H 4, ,,',.,, L. nossihl, that
| exception Wes TAKE H. II ciii..'1 m % ~ ,liI T., tb.
had the atlen'i9n -. 4,e r,.,,cs WIN its pre-
matter IL W'uiu NOT, H. h s,atrmenis out
Nious run '', ,b ea,,r line The court con-
''!Onul'T '0
ciuaed as l,i.o"s s,t.d NO excoptior was taken.
| As aII'@..I ..Is. -, =" .,,r, ~, annoal has !, lv-cr
to reverse a coivlcr,%n loI ha. ion taken the
erTm ,dr wmgFG mTst be- be Substantial ana the court fairly
onnrisnd Of the objection This matter is ui'ins
ana it wogG od be- be- reTersra 5@ On this ground alone
Afer some reference u further evidence justice
cullen concluded his opinion as follows: .,....,
"i have briefly reviewed the principal ALLEGED
or.drs nf tln trial of this case. $50 far as th
have been presented to M. can find no @uo-
stantial or reasonable doubt as 10 the lesai'y
I'D c~rracfness of the conduct II the trial ana
'nnst Therefore. deny the application for GER
,ifcate Of reasonable doubt"
THE SUTHERLAND JURY.
1'E . .,,,,
The trial Of Kenneth +. sutherland was '''.'
fairly begun before Justice Cullen, ana 'he '"SN