The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-02-27

the subject matter ~ the charge on trial
offence charged, i s. equally. nlain that cir.
| cumstsnces that fairly tend TO establish the
he secluded b.cause they also lend to show
| another crime by the defendant Thus ~ q
ste '5, S5 and Or Sn t .s
der com ps;snt evidence on the trial ristsegy.
alleged errors in the admission Of evidence.
These may be grouped in several classes The
satufdav night previous TO election when the
copyists who were sent to COPY the lists were
Was siear fgS eo%ps t The lists might have
been as ei1ectually concealed from the public
and copJing them been prevented by personal
to them as 10 any other manner. The fact that
on sunday there would be NO legal right to
enforce al Inspection and copy Of the lists in
nowise Affects the question. These copyists
II not dlsorderly or committing any offence.
town. II they found themselves subjects
Of uniusti1able assault or arrest they
enter a the town or make the copies at any time.
was question ss,h 81, q TACT 70. the iuTy to &c,
true true the defendant denied this intent and gave
present a question Of fact for the jury The
eSidence incom petent. The same com m snt is
to be ade rs to the evidence OF the assault
e en- sRd tine aTss. the the STy
that such sn assault and arrest were
wholly without justification and that the de.
to say whether such nets were committed by
the defendant with the intent to prevent nc-
watched. Mr.: CIRCUITS testimony as 10 his in
teryiew with Mckane over the te!ephone vas
TO establish that he was the person who held
the conversation with circuit; The fact that
law
Grout did not render the evidence incompe-
tent. The Jury were at liberty to believe the
TESTIMONY that he was the person that had the
conversation. and yet disbolieve him and be-
lieve Grout as TO what that conversation was.
said to the inspectors when serving upon them
orders to show cause why m9damus should
matters tending to show u desire OF. wish on
the part OF those acting on behalf Of Mr., Grout
TO obtain access to the lists: The evidence
was admitted BY the Court. The duty de-
volved by the statute upon the Inspectors Is to
desire access to the registry list plainly that
would devolve upon the INSPECTORS no very
great duty OF Affirmative active vigilance In
But II the inspectors were apprissd that
the list and that efforts made By them for
that purpose had proved fruitless. then 1t may
well be that the inspectors were bound e
adopt means to secure access which would
not have been incumbent upon them other
wise: In the testimony given on that sub.
admitted that 1t may be was objectionable.
one witness testified that when he served In;
inspector, futile the latter said he was going
to hand the napers to the defendant There
TO no aGas as tho es
again that the Court intended to conIlne the
inspe"tors Of the desire to Obtain access 70 the
registry lists. The question which called forth
In the light OF the revous rulings OF the Court.
Thus construed the question was unoDjection-
shows that tho dele ndant Objected to- the part
OF IL above referred to- but the record fails TO
show what ne Court made thereon And
that. had tho attention OF the Court been called
to the matter II would not. in accordance with
Its previous ruling. have stricken the state
- As already stated no exception was taken.
to reverse a conviction for errors on the trial,
even where no exceptions have heen tax en-. the
appraised OF the objection. This matter is
trliinG. and IL would be absurd to suppose that
aconviction would Le reversed ON this ground
The evidence OF the statements made by the
persons having control OF the lists or apparently
in control OF tho Offices in which the lists were
lodged SO far as 1t was admitted, was competent
Such statements were part Of the res gestR and
access was denied to the list.
have briefly reviewed the prime pal alleged
have been present ed to me: l eau ind no sub
or reasonable doubt as TO the legality
must therefore. deny the application Tor GER
Application for certificate denied and stay
II is not known exactly how McKane re- |
eeived the news OF this decision against him.
ID. He supposed when he heard il. and so did |
Nc Kane. that the vacation OF the stay made an |
sS sdf 70 ss tRs as
As soon as he received the order from the |
fssSss d SI yni ka %n'i p pel.
sonal counsel. when he heard the news. new
around n;n Ike her, hen with itf head on for few
! bit. he SAID aid '"'n ""'n n' "aa Canned a0"h
OF course. We shall apply to another Judge.
,ounsei who would say anything: but In the
:ounseI Tor sutherland before Judge Cullen,
40 asked the Justice TO grant him an order on
he sheriff 70 produce Mckane in court this
"McKsns." he said, lis one Of the most i'm
'oItant Witnesses for the defence in this case.
n court to testify"
LAWYER Wsrnbere. who with Lawyer Lamb
suggest to. your Honor that that is no,
,ecessary. McKane is now in the Raymond
I Ims u ne was in Sing Sing of course. it
Wait and see how this case Progresses just
low We will devote our time to getting this
uTy.
few minutes after this incident in court
-awyer Lamb said to a lend that there would
20 no objection from the prosecution to
Nc kane's testlfyinR in Sutherland's case.
This. II was construed, meant that Mckane
vSuld he kept in Raymond street Jail. hut
yhen Lawyer Lamb was asked the question
'olnt blank by a reporter he said:
Where MchAne Is to he Kept the lawyers
or tho prosecution have nothing TO say. We
endant."
Mr.. shepard was seen a. his Office later and
10 supplemented the statement as follows:
The prosecution will not deny TO John Y. |
leblanc the right TO testify in the Sutherland |
ase because lac Is party to that case: and, |
urtheT, because the Prosecution Is assured by
he defence that no further application for a !
tRy will 10 made"
shortly after this statement from Mr.
hazard clerk from that lawyers office APP
cared in Justice Clllen's court with an orl- |
ial notice addressed To the Sherin notifyinR |
nm that the stay had :bssn vacated and that
ne Judgment AZ pronounced by Justice Bart |
su should be enforced. This WAS handed TO |
he Justice, who signed IL, NJ. IL was then | ,
lken down 10 the County Clerks ONCE, whare |
WAS iiled Just moment before that office
lossd for the day. The County Clerk had |
one. and Therefore Sheriff Butiling did not
r. ms Official mobilization last night and he
Ill not get II until this morning.