New-York tribune., 1899-04-26
MOLINEUX IN COURT AGAIN.
JUSTICE BooKsTAvER HEARS ARGUMENT
FOR HIS RELEASE AND ADJoURNs
THE CASE UNTIL MONDAY.


Roland B. Molneux. accused OF the muroer ~
Mrs Kate = Adams was before Justice BOOK
staver in the Supreme Court, yesterday on lhe 'e
turn Of writ OF habeas corpus and ceruorari p'o'
cured In his behalf on Monday. On the apphca-
ton OF Assistant District-Attorney lie baroiei'
however. the arguments on the return were po''
poned until 23o o'clock in the afternoon. ms ar
rangement was agreed to by Mr. Weeks Oh "e'"'
& Battle, counsel for Molineux.
In opening Mr. Weeks said that there were sew
erai portions OF the return made by warden hasa
through the Distrct-Attorney that he wisneu -
traverse. He wanted adjournment TO 90 So
but the Court directed him to traverse the re'''"
orally and submit copy later.
District Attorney Gardiner then read his return
to the writ of habeas corpus and ceruorarh !.
showed that Molineux was held by the warue" VI
the Tombs by reason OF a warrant Issued pS '"o
Coroner also by reason Of a bench warrant issueu
by the Court OF General Sessions charging the
prisoner with the murder OF Mrs. ADAMS also th"'
according to Justice Wsmss order the indict-
ment not dismissed but only set asioe' oy
reason of legal techncallties. and that the caSe
was to be resubmitted TO another Grand jury ana
that under these circumstances the code WARRANTED
the holding OF the prisoner.
After the Distrct-Attorney had finished reaoihs
the return, Mr.. Weeks asked that he be compeheu
to state upon which portion OF the return he was
going to stand. To this District-Attorney Garuinei
replied that he not compelled TO make sucn I"
statement and he was upheld by the Court
Mr. Weeks then made his oral traverse 10 the
return. He said IT was defective In that u"uei ,
Section 2O26 Of the code return must SET Iorth
the true cause of detention at length. Mr.. Weeks
argued that the return made by the Distric'-A'-
torney did not set forth the true cause OF oe'e"'o
and that II was inconsistent. .
"The writ Of certorari is not compiled witn'
said Mr.. Weeks "for the reason that all the papers
called for are not submitted. The records In the
uyht
was committed. not here The evidence gwen
before the Coroner did not warrant the commit
ment OF Mr.. Molineux.
"As to the bench warrant issued by the Court or
General Sessions, 1t is not a warrant at ALL put
commitment pure and simple. 1t is commitment
upon the indictment found by the Grand jury
This Indictment has been set aside. and therefore
the commitment is void and should be set aside
'As to the Coroner's commitment. II is also VOID
AS is well known he refused to continue nearing
the case while in the midst of it. saying under tne
advice Of the Distrct-Attorney that ne hao oee"
As the order OF Justice Williams It does dnSt not
say that the prisoner snail be held nder he CIR
cumstances Mr.. Moneux is being ne,d nto oS tie M,
constitutional rights There is no indictment against
him and he should be released" ,.,
Mr. Weeks then recited the terms OF Jusuce
Williams's order and said that the District-Attor-
ney maintained that the prisoner was not heid ny
due process OF law, but that his commitment was rs
by the act OF the Legislature. and that because OF
this act Molineux was to be deprived Of his liberty
for another two months. He argued tnat thls
enactment unconstitutional.
Colonel Gardiner said that there was no 20 douDt
that the commitment by the Coroner had been en-
tirely superseded by the indictment.
III" said he "the Indictment had been dismissed.
instead Of being set aside and discharged @ then
the question might properly arise II II was the duty
OF the Coroner TO proceed with his examination.
which he obliged TO terminate by reason OF
the indictment"
Having recited the order of Justice Williams. he
said that II clearly provided for the resuomisslon
OF the Indictment to the April Grand Jury or the
May Grand Jury, which latter has not yet been
convened. Justice Wiamss order had not been
signed until after the April Grand Jury had been
discharged, and tho indictment would be sub
mitted TO the May Grand Jury in due course.
This prisoner in lawful custody. The in
dictment found against him set aside and dis
charged. but not dismissed. Had II been dismissed
Il could not be resubmitted. II is not for me TO
question that decision. The code makes due pro-
vision for the resubmsson. and II that resubmis-
sion be not made at this term the succeeding
term Of the Grand Jury. then the prisoner must be
discharged from custody r14lf
After a few remarks from Mr.. Weeks Justice
Bookstaver said he would receive briefs on Thurs
day. and adjourned the further hearing until Mon
day next