New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-14

clslons OF the Appellate Court might appear to
be contradictory. and tine acknowledgement OF
the soundness OF his claim for a change OF venue
may furnish one mere loophole to escape a
cell In Sing Sing.
The order denying a change OF venue was re-
versed not on Its merits but because or an
error in procedure. This error was the action
Of the lower court in compelling the defendant
to proceed to a hearing OF the motion for
change OF venue at a date earlier than that
fixed in his notice. The real object OF the
change OF venue. however. according TO the
opinion, is to secure an impartial trial That
object. as matter OF fact was secured. as the
Court finds. An impartial jury was secured
and no serious fault is found with the conduct
OF the jury
MLAUGHLIN NOT ARRESTED.
Mclaughlin was said to be IN the city yes
terday but he was not arrested. His counsel
said that he would be surrendered. and that Inn
mediate application would be made for another
certificate Of reasonable doubt. in order that his
case might be carried to the Court OF Appeals
Assistant District-Attorney Davis said shortly
before p. m. that Mclaughlin would not be
arrested last night. He said II was decided 10
give two days motto, OF the afirmance of the
former conviction to the defence. and at the
end OF that time IL no cognHance was taNe"
Mclaughlin woulc be arrested.
McLaugAlln was Inspector OF Police when ne
was tried twice on the charge OF bribery. the
chief witness against him being +. W. Seasrist'
the builder. After his conviction on the second
trial he was sentenced by Justice Barrett 10
two years and six months In Sing Sing. He has
been at liberty under heavy BAH wh"e MS ap-
peal pending.
Mrr.o in had n ra ID promotion In the police
force because OF his undoubted detective ability.
For years he was known the right hand OF
Chief lnspector I}yrnes In the Detective bureau.
and Il was through the influence OF Mr.. Byrnes
that he rose 10 the rank OF Inspector. Before the
Lexow Committee Mclaughlin admitted that he
had acquired property amounting TO about
100000 since he had been a member of the ioroe'
but he declared that he had made most OF II
by speculatlng In real estate. 1t Is well known
that his expenses In defending himself In the TWO
trials have been large. and 1t Is generally De-
lieved that he has spent considerable part OF
his fortune In efforts to escape imprisonment
GROUNDS OF THE OPINION.
The opinion on the change OF venue was writ
ten by Justice Rumsey and that affirming the
conviction by Justice Williams.
Justice Williams pays particular attention 10
the lower courts action and rulings during the
selection OF the jurors. and says:
"An intelligent men are accustomed 10 reau
these newspapers and may corm more or less
definite opinions or Impressions as to the matters
therein contained and 10 express such opii''o"s
or impressions to others. only the ignorant
classes fail TO read the papers from dGy 10 day
II Is apparent therefore. that when men are
called as jurors to Sit In an important criminal
case a case that has excited great feeling ana
tn. in tha mi honest.
gent men will be able to say that they nave no.
heard or read Of the case and nave not lotlreu
or expressed an opinion as To the guiit or i%nno %
cence Of the defendant who H. being tried Men
who d. say this ore discovered TO be wanting !"
intelligence or are suspected OF dishonesty III
their statements. IT, therefore. an honest, ih'el-
ligcnt jury is to be obtained at all In the case,
r,cn who have heard and read OF the case. ana
who have formed and expressed an opinion as 10
the guilt or innocence OF the defendant. must De
selected"
The answers OF particular talesmcn are re-
ferred to. and 1t Is said that the trial Judge
had the best opportunity OF forming an opinion
as 10 their intelligence. since he couh cohsinet
such important factors. as To their appearance
and demeanOr. The Court does not see tnat the
trial Judge improperly exercised MS discre.@,on. @
The Court does not regard the contention .ia'
the NTH count in the indictment. under Whlcn
the trial was had. did not contain the proper
allegations as to the time ana place OF the
crime as well ll-founded. The matters were spe
ciically stated In other counts. and, although
the Distrct-Attorney elected TO proceed under
the NTH count. the others were not absolutely
oblicratcd
Discussing the point Tint the threat was mace
by Wardman Burns and not by Mclaughlin
then captain. 1t Is stated that the law or this
State now makes who would formerly nave
been an accessory before the fact prnclpai.
person may be connected as principal VINO
though absent when the crime was committed.
advised and procured the commission.
As to the claim that testimony that other al
legged criminal counts not specified In the In
dctmcnt were testified to- the point Is made
that the line OF testimony was admitted to prove
the agency Of Burns. The Court Is OF the opin-
ION that for this purpose such testimony "aS
proper The opinion. In closing. says:
1T seems to us that the defendant was proven
beyond any reasonable doubt to have been
guilty Of the crime OF cxtortion charged In the
indictment. and that the judgment should be
affirmed"
NATURAL GAS NOT DUTIABLE.