New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-05
GRAND JURY SEEKS LIGHT.
BREAKING AWAY FROM DISTRICT-AT-
TORNEY IN MOLINEUX CASE

M
DISPOSITION TO FIND AGAINST SOME
ONE ELSE AS WE'LL AS MoLINEUX.
The Grand Jury continued the investigation
of the case against Roland g. Monneux yes
terday. but did not apparently finish the IN
,,es,iga.,on or decide TO find a new indictment
There was a remarkable departure from the
ordinary secret method of proceeding which
indicated that the Grand Jury wanted to in
vestigate the case in a manner cinerent from
that desired by the District-Attorney. ana that
an accusation against another man as wen as
against Molineux might be the result OF the
investigation.
The Grand Jury went in a body before Judge
Mcmahon in Part / OF General Sessions, and
asked some pertinent questions regarding the
examination Of witnesses The questions indi-
Gated dissatisfaction at the manner In which
the District Attorney is conducting the ex-
animation Of witnesses in the Molineux case.
Judge Mcmahon had intmation that the
Grand Jury wanted to ask some questions. ana
was ready to receive the panel 1t filed into
the courtroom at II 80 m. Wien the mem
bers of the jury had taken their places William
c. Church the foreman. addressed the Judge:
"Your Honor. we have some questions to ask
and would first like to know whether we snail
address the Court publicly or privately
Openly" replied Judge McMahoh' openly VI
NO NAMES ALLOWED
There was = little pause, and Judge Mcmahon
resumed: I'm whatever you have to ask or say
he careful not to mention names. Now go on.
"Tvhere is a case of homicide before us, salo
Mr. Church. land the question is as TO whether
or not we are limited in our power or hVesti-
CATION If there are circumstances which IN
volve another are bound 70 confine our IN
vestigations to the person charged by the DIS
trict-Attorney with the crime?'
Judee Mcmahon replied: THE more orderly
procedure is the investigation Of the individuai
charged by the District-Attorney. Then Judge
McMahon stated that If it came out In the IN
vestigation that any other Individual was III
yolved the Grand Jury had the power 10 iflaAe
all the pertinent inquiries and the power 10 SEM
for any witnesses needed. Then Judge McMahon
read the statutes governing the power Oh 'ic
Grand Jury. and said that the determining OF
the cause of death was in the province Of the
Coroner He declared that the Grand jury IN
,ts Investigation was bound TO send for any
witness whose testimony might explain or throw
light upon the affair
Foreman Church--The question does not arise as
10 the sdmmoning OF witnesses put as 70 I'M dsses
actually summoned how far the Grano J ,iy ~, 10
limited in its inquiry on the theory '"a' ''''' ~
dividual Is the only .
The judge know OF no limit whatever. except
d eS can be received In defining the word legal
1t is proper for me TO say perhaps tna III u'e iynIv
IN a wssfh EVIDENCE There is certain class OF
evidence which the law forbds TO be received IN a
court of Justice such privileged communications,
Tor instance the testimony Of physician as 10 the
Of his patient without N, sEe nadmsSibe evil
dence but Illegal evidence and the words da
as would be admissible upon trial of case in a
court OF Justice. The evidence OF witness as 10
What he has heard is merely hearsay and Is not
legal evidence In the examination Of witnesses
you would have no right to compel witness te NO 70
degrade him This IS not admissible evidence unless
Voluntarily gwen tsstno0 0v from witness He must
testify as to facts within his knowledge Beyond mat
may address to the witness that are pertinent TO
the case and 70 the oeterminauo" Vi 'i'o ''"''e'
they inquirng into.
NOT HEARSAY TESTIMONY
Foreman Church-You speak of hearsay testi-
,nonv Now does that go TO the extent OF report
ing a conversation that some person had with the
accused?
The Judge-No
The Foreman-The question arises right here.
and have a conversation There is third
party c. Now. A a witness is asked as TO MS
the ice OF tns Of Se
accused person or with the acGsseS person ps6 htors
mot mot Tand jury and before Of justice
The Forenan-The question is the conyer ss %
but upon a possible accusation against G. ra.
Judge McMahon-I only reply IN the WORDS
OF the statute, that you are privileged 10 senq LOT
sny witness and to examine any witness where you
have reason TO believe that other evidence Wltnih
reach will explain away the charge
The Foreman-That is the understanding or the
sGrand jury.
The Grand Jury then withdrew.
The peculiar course of the Grand Jury In going
10 Judge Mcmahon for advice when they have
the District Attorney a legal adviser created
much comment. It said that Assistant
District ATTORNEY Osborne who Is conducting
the case before the Grand Jury, was oesrous
of shielding Cornish from further examination,
and that the Grand Jury insisted upon having
matters cleared up. This was apparent in the
determined attitude and manner OF members or
the Grand Jury in Judge McMahon's court
They spent all the forenoon in discussing the
case among themselves before going to call on
Judge Mcmahon 800
The Grand Jury adjourned a little after 1;5O
o. M after having heard the evidence OF Harry
s. Cornish. No indictment was presented, and
the fury did not go into court again
District Attorney Gardiner yesterday after
noon said in speaking Of the Molineux case
that he had referred TIE entire case 10 his as
sIstants Messrs. Osborne and Unger. He had
known General Molneux for number or years
and had been private counsel FOR Foreman
Church Of the Grand Jury for twenty-five years
For those reasons he had taken no personal IN
terest in the case.