New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-07-09
JUSTICE GAYNOR TO THE RESCUE OF THE
CONVICTED INSPECTOR.
HE LEVELS SOME CRITICISMS AT THE PROCEED
INGs IN TIE SUPREME COURT ~ THIS CITY
BEFORE JUSTICE INGRAHAM AND CUES
TIoNs RULING ADMITTING TO
EVIDENCE THE CONCLUSIONS
IT, EXPRESSED IN ONE OF Al
,-l sEAGRrsr.s MEMO ny

noon when Justice Gaynor, sitting In the Supreme
Court in Brooklyn. handed down an opinion In
the case Counsel for Mclaughlin had moved
for a stay pending an appeal. and argument, on
the motion had been heard by Justice Gaynor.
who. before the second trial of Mclaughlin, mad
ordered a temporary stay pending an argument
on a motion to change the place of trial TO an
other county In granting the motion for stay,
which means an appeal and "A probable long de-
lay in sending Mclaughlin TO prison. Justice Gay
nor takes Justice Ingraham 10 task for over
ruling the first stay and forcing Mclaughlin to
trial In this city. He also questions the pro-
prety OF a ruling By Justice Barrett in the sec
ond trial Of Mclaughlin. by which an entry In the
account book Of the witness Seagrist was ad-
mitted as a most damaging piece OF evidence for
the prosecution.
THE OPINION.
The opinion in part is as follows:
The law does upon me the duty Of con- ,ho
Guiding whether error was actually committed IN 'ne
defendants case on tne contrary. tne ,saeonabe
doubt whether the judgment should stand ~ Is my
duty without going furher 70 gram ,,S of udSmeHt
pending appeal ] have such doubt. and being una
Ss 50 ssS rs.eand T % thu Which the
law lays upon me. and allow the stay. WITHOUT 70
F1 Il my hi. AR'I,Snsa nsa shall
pending his appeal ls insignificant indeed conpar.i
derry administration Of criminal justice and the ne ne
cessty Of preserving those individual rgh,e wh,in
not protect the guilty have not n msrsy ersyv tnls ons
shall specify two alleged errors The defendant
Sas r", !s ra N Snied lsS CS on s,'nry May H. s by
disagreement OF the jury The case was al once SCI
ahead ahead nam"y. ' on Mo ,day May b. Counsel for ie
fcniant thrn decided to make moiiCn IN me r, Hu
another county on the ground that fair AMI I'M
partial ;ra could not DC had in the county OF Now New
York In this state OF things the defendants coun
Sc claimed that hc bad H9 hnd a1d GSq a9s ,r
ard impartial trial which the law guarantees u
every ,
allegations It Is enough that they were by no mea
sh, or ,riyoons and tha de1e1dsn S was sy
the experience of the past had wisely - PROVIDED.
LESSON OF HISTORY.
| From the irregular ana disorcery trial Of Jesus
! down 10 the present time history In almost every
| generation affords Instances Of trials conducted
without due camness and attention. in which some
times the innocent and sometimes the guilty were
convicted but Invariably N either case win IN"
Ike erec, IN the end. that the conviction was gen
eraIy deemed unjust ana pToyed more
have been. II IS maxim ~ mhnlines' ana hea'thy
hSmnn nanFe as o as e y ap pay Should not
4 10 con~lrlil ] =, all.
our.,,nsbi" neg Iesa fSs to move the supreme
| Court cnange his place Of trial. wna' toIloWssl
| lie MAS tiN'r INfrI Win N4lls''''f ~ 49,
| The statu,c was expllci, that ne could bring on
such motion only lion n%2,Ge % 81 ,i,r ri ,'' pro' %
c.inr" scion 49, &5p,, ~" as has t.en seen and would
only nne nny, .h." Ia aS milton na1 AMI max" Il, use.
| less Ru, tho law ll not leave him In such eyll
preme court might grant stay Of The trial untl
| the motion should be hfaII an 'scl''i V"l"
else OF li.lscnce the lefenlanrs attorneys hai the
record necessary the motion ready IN ipur Hay :,
ne same g. Justice OF the Supreme Cour, On that
| dav they obtained Of him the temporary "hy of me
be- hcsri VIZ. on Monl,v' June 3. The following
morning VIZ. saurday coi"S 9, me m'aon re 'sare
Including the stay and NOTES of motion "rrr va !
upon the DlstrictArorney. TIE dcien tnh' ma nhii
acted strictly G s'ora,nss ,"I %n ny "" Ia, % pror to
the DAY sct for the trial for tho statute. as has
been seen. required ina, he should give notice
| OF motion of not less than ten lays ,A
on he following Monday morning. however. at IN NE
,rct Attorney caused q be served upon the de
PENDANTS attorney an order rclurins 'no nng
before special Term Of ,hc supreme v2nr IN IN
New-York Ciy. why ne dsiendant U.s., "oI', nDH ,hcrc
forthwith proceed and be neard nnr, Tns 51'iSr S
counsel appeared before ne supremr vUur' nearnr
evidence Of the unseemly haste In when ~" M, n,,
procec,iine and denying s jurisdiction to 90 50;
asked that time be set to argue he h gIeo,nst
overrnied every objection. ana required the he. he.
fendant proceed at once 10 present - - o,,r ~
sel refused to DO The Court thereupon made ni ani
entered an order 10 the effect that thc m'"Hn on, vas
| heard and denied. and vacatlng the stay pu' re-
citing refusal OF dcfendant 70 MAKE 'hr yan
before ~ and thereupon ,hs tour, OF y' lmme n
diatcy began the trial Of the dsfendan aSa,mS, T,
mo objection Of his counsel thar me nn Therefore
the stay Of the trial was s,ill In force. ana the
hny" r"asonabc doubt OF the validity of ~,
precpta'e procsedng ,s In hs acfsn3anS case then
can he repeated in any ones case ~ - l'ht,o :,
Important that Justice appear 10 De non' ho,pI a. Nv
| no done II ia important that crime -honIu -.
punished but far more Important that the rign,, gnu
Of the individual should be held involan1' onnr ,"r
alone is all that stands between MN anu ''"'''''
II the order OF the Supreme Court was vo,t .r tnsn
the stay was In force wneh '"c 'o"'' " '
| and Tcrminer tried the cause
THE srAGRIsT MEMORANDUM.
Another assigned error raises n grave question
The Indictment was for the extortion OF y" IRON
one Seagrist Seagrist swore positively '"a' Nv
paid $50 10 either the defendant or Burns out ina
he could not remember which His duDie,y wac
| upor this point only. He then testineu '''' ~
| made a true memorandum OF the occurrence az ,h'
time Of payment and produced It. Being redurs,e. @ r, !,
to Gok G at n1 the ,hsn sad have no distinct cq
lection By looking Eaonbe at tne q Ths wD
was then offered and received In evidence agains ms
ns S aeaf"aSn' e. 1877 % Paid
aushG for Rsr ssd sedsfa"S s we h
that he could not tell from this memorandum t,
which on paid The money heGase II Tas bno
| keeping 0or no such thing was before him,. bu
| nce,niny that the entry double In meaning o
| egnvocal And so the memorandum seems to be be
for who can say from 1t. any more than Seag,is rs
| .ou,d ubcther IL conveys the statement that TN,
money was paid TO Mclaughlin per or n thromg'
i'm Tor nrotcctlon TO he given per or through Burns
| II follows that this Delphic memorandum was no.
| competent to prove 10 whlch one ,he "ohes wal
| actually given by Seagrst. . ,,, 49,, ).
| II was Competent for Seagrist 10 TESTIFY that u,
! had naid tho money to Burns. but not competent
for him thereupon to state tho CONCLUSION that sncf
| n,vment amounted to payment TO Mclaughlin. fe
| thst /. What this memor andum was Interpreted e
state by the prosecution. II one could make writ
| ION mcmoror rdum of his conclusions. ana In ina
| way ofterward have them received In evidence M
! one wouId be safe in liberty or property. There
would be end OF fabricated nefnorahua
The motion Is granted
n. D. HARRIS SAID TO HAVE RESIGNED