New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-11-10
DELAY ~ THE MOLINEUI CASE.
RECORDER GOFF REFUSES TO FIX A TIME
FOR TRIAL AND CRIT1CISES THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

Recorder CiofY in Part II OF the Court OF General
Sessions yesterday refused TO set date for the
trial Of Roland Il. Moneux. Justice Fursman. OF
the Criminal Branch Of the Supreme court. had
set November II rs the date for the trial. but the
District Attorney had the case transferred TO the
General Sessions Court. The Recorder declared
that he regarded the actions of the District Attor
ney in the transfer most peculiar.
The case was put Recorder COTS calendar by
Assistant District Attorney Osborne, who has had
charge Of the case all along. He in court late
and Barlow s. Weeks and George Gordon cattle
counsel for Molineux. were also in court
As soon as the came up the lawyers OBJ
jeced TO the Recorder trying IT, Mr.. Weeks
making q statement that the case had been trans
ferred to the Criminal Branch of the Supreme
Court on November 2. and that Justice Fursman
had set the date for the trial as November a. Sub
sequently. said Mr. Weeks. Assistant District At
torney Osborne had asked the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court to authorize and select a
special jury to try the case After the order had
been submitted to the court the was again. on
November g. transferred from the Criminal Branch
Of the Supreme Court TO the Court of General Ses-
slons. Mr. Weeks said that owing to this action.
he declined to participate in any action relating to
the fixing OF a date for the trial. declaring that
under the law the Appellate Division, In appointing
a special jury must designate the time OF the trial
You can't do much with the shifting methods OF
the District Attorney" said Mr.. Weeks.
The law contemplates such thing" said Mr..
Osborne "The District Attorney could put the
case on any calendar at any time
In defence Of his action yesterday he said: Il
always intended to try this case in General Ses-
sions AS to the proceedings the other day, could
not do otherwise than to have the case put back
again The District Attorney has frequently trans
ferred cases to the Supreme Court ana back again
1t is no hardship in this instance 10 the defendant
Recorder Goff interrupted the Assistant District
Attorney to ask:
What becomes of the motion In the Appellate
Division for a special juryY
Mr. Osborne said that the motion there was only
part Of the action. The action itself, he faid. was
the transfer of the The selection OF the jury
was a mere mechanical detail. Recorder Gof then
said:
The disagreeable part Of this whole thing is that
the transfer OF this particular case The Court
has not had any consultation with any one re-
Iih a the 10 acton p Of the District Attorney regard
10 this case This simply shows the peculiar pocy
The District Attorney has transferred certain
classes Of cases to other courts without ronsulta-
ton II formerly the rule to consult the judges
when transfers were made.
This Court will not hold itself responsible for the
action of the District Attorney. The Court has
never tried sought TO get any particular cass Oh
eases but has been ready to try any and all 1t was
''q must ii say in justice the Judge Of the court
n peculiar action to take ii from him ana transfer
IT here without consulting him 1t was aus, also pc
other court to the Supreme Court without consuita-
ton.
Mr. Osborne said that 1t was always his intention
TO trv the case in General Sessions. Mr. Weeks
said that the defendants interests would be i'm
haired by the transfer OF the case around like a
football
Counsel cannot prepare the case in the Interest
NJ the DEFENDANT" he said, IF il be necessary to
await the action of the District Attorney:
Mr. Osborne became red In the face, ana ne arose
hastily and said - - , ,,,.
I've had harder work keeping you from drlNlhs
my witnesses away. 80, 4.
il was Mr. Weeks's turn 10 flush. and he said to
the Recorder that he asked the court 70 take no
fice that the statement OF the District Attorney
was highly improper. The Recorder SAID that tney
were not there 10 comment on each others irrele-
want attacks, but TO decide the case at hand
corder TO Mr.. Weeks. that motion WAS m,'de by
the District Attorney to the Appellate Division Tor
a special jury. or that day was ever set TOT the
trial of the case.
The Recorder asked Mr.. Weeks to answer sim
ple question in regard to a point In the case but
Mr. Weeks declined. The Recorder said That as a
lawyer Mr.. Weeks ought 10 know II was ms duly
to enlighten the Court. Mr.. Weeks said that he
would not participate In the matter AT all. as ne
had no right TO do while the case was pending
I'm another court. 1t would be discourteous, he
considered
MIR Osborne said he not surprised at the
attitude OF the defendants counsel
Every time the case has come up he has placed
obstacles In the way To prevent us going on.
The Recorder asked Mr.. Weeks II he would sub
nit papers In the case and Mr.. Weeks said he
would not The Recorder said he would decide the
this morning . A.,
mailer / see no reason said Mr.. Osborne but
Recorder Con- interrupted him and said:
II consider that there r. sn,foien' 'easo" lot
Molineux was not in Assistant District
Attorney O'Connor with Mr.. Osborne.