New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-29
oUAsHED BYJUDGECOwING
RrTLER-HoLr ''MAsToDoNo INDICTMENT
DISMISSED.
THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE EVIDENCE
DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED WITH
IN THE JURISDICTION OF
GENERAL SESSIONS.

,ao coutns In Part OF General Sessions. yes
.o-asv morning delivered another blow at the
I,,ri,t. Attorneys ONCE and the methods used In
living indictments He dismissed the indictment
s criminal libel against Professor Nicholas Murray
o.,.r and Charles and Henry Holt editor and
l"nl,bers OF The Educational Review" They
- charged by Joseph ]. Little. president OF the
nsrd NJ Education. with having libelled him in
-. February number OF their publication by calling
~, that fine old educational mastodon. The
,d,--n,ent is dismissed because the legal evidence
Love the Grand Jury does not prove that the
sueges crime was committed within the jurisdiction
o. the court
The oninion handed down by Judge Ccwing is as
follows:
This is motion TO set aside an indictment upon
two grounds VIZ tlr f 'n b C1d Inr TO war
amt the finding Of the Indictment and. second that
The Grand Jury received and acted upon hleeai
ey soeion 25s Of the Code of Criminal Procedure
pr9v ctnent when all OF the evidence before them
,aEsn unexplained and uncontradicted would justify
TD" convict where all the material allegations
contained in the indictment are established by legal
The Court Of General Sessions. generally speak
is limited do in IT'S of and It %
becomes necessary TO allege and prove that the
TeV,-York IN order to show that ii comes within
The jurisdiction Of the court 60, ,,
After careful examination OF the GRAND Jury min
utes find no legal evidence that the alleged crime
Was committed in the county OF New-York, There
e no legal evidence that at the time OF the pub
ii.atior OF the alleged libel the complainant re-
si5e5 in The county OF New-York, or that the
Terio1ical containing the alleged defamatory article
Vas printed in the county OF New-York: and the
onv legal evidence OF the publication OF the article
Vas given by the witness Henry ;. Fuller, who
testified on the point as follows;
"O-You know The Educational Review? A
Yes. sir. ,,., =, >-,-,, ~,
rav Butler and published by the firm OF Henry
Holt & CO.. composed OF Charles and Henry Holt?
"o-Did you receive their copy Of The Educa-
tlonal Review Vol Il. No 2 Whole g. February
Number 1899? Ayes. sir
"Q-You know The Educational Review here
produced and exhibited 10 YOU is the paper pub
ished by Messrs. Holt Co, and edited by Nicholas
Murray Butler? Ayes. sir. received the number
you have from them in exchange
above is all Of the legal evidence there is In
the minutes OF the Grand Jury 10 prove the pub
lcaton OF the alleged libel. and from this It will
Re observed that the witness does not state when he
received IL where ne received Il.
For the reason that the legal evidence before the
Grand Jury does not prove that the alleged crime
was committed within the jurisdiction of the court
the motion 10 set aside the indictment is granted.
District Attorney Gardiner when on the sub
sect said: IF the Indictment has been set aside
on a technically OF course II will be resubmitted
70 the Grand Jury"