New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-20
MUST RESUBMIT THE CASE.
THE CHARGE AGAINST MOLINEUN TO GU
BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AGAIN.

.,.. r,,r.r,or s,tting I'm the Criminal Term OF
the Supreme Court. yesterday morning o'eiiu
the objection of Weeks Battle. counsel FOR Holahu
u Molineux. and ordered a resubmission OF the
case TO a Grand Jury lie denied the appnca.io"
Of Assistant District-Attorney Osborne that 'us,se
Ierom. Of the Court Of Special Sessions, near tne
evidence and at the request OF Mr. weeks ",'ue
his order read that the case should DE prese"'eu W
the present Grand Jury, possible or not ia'er '""
July to the July Grand Jury.
Assistant DIstrict-Attorney Osborne reviewed the
case and dwelt upon the rapidity win "hich tne
arst Grand Jury had found the Indictment and crit-
cIsed the second Grand Jury for refusing 70 inolet
Molineux. The questions asked by the oraiu
Jurors Mr. Osborne said, were apparently framed
with no intention of ferreting out the crime put
with the sole purpose Of generating MoliheuA' nc
also thought that "a most remarkable charge Oh
Judge Mcmahon Influenced the Grand Jury.
Barlow S. Weeks. Of counsel for MoIneux' re-
nied that An attempt had been made to deprive his
client of his legal rights, and that 1t was against
that attempt that he was there to protest He said
that in the efforts to blacken the character OF
his client, the Dlstrict-Attorney had violated the
law. which ordained secrecy concerning the donss
OF the Grand Jury
Justice Fursman said there was no law to make
II necessary to submit evidence a Magistrate be-
fore submitting 1t to the Grand Jury, and that II
was also a mistake to suppose that everything IN Ii
Grand Jury must be kept a secret
Justice Williams" continued Justice Fursmah'
"set aside the first Indictment because Illegal evil
dence had been presented to the Grand Jury, and
he ordered a resubmisson to another Grand jury.
The effect Of that Grand Jury's act Is not OF ma
terial consequence There is no limitation AS
often as a court with jurisdiction may direct the
Dstrict-Attorney may present the case TO different
grand jures II has been argued that this case Is
in the Jurisdiction Of the Court Of General SEES
sons What case? To the legal mind no case IL In
existence against MolineUx. No indictment has
been found and consequently there is nothing but
an accusation Amy court with jurisdiction may
order the submission OF the evidence supporting
that accusation to the Grand Jury.
IL am convinced. not because of the controversy
between counsel, that It is the duty of the Grand
Jury inquire If a crime has been committed, anu
to subpoena any witnesses it desires to hear. And
the Judge who charged the Grand Jury has
charged in accordance with the law. The pre-
sumption Of law is that the accused Is innocent,
and the presumption of fact is that he Is innocent
but think public justice and the welfare OF the
accused will be better subserved II the case be
again submitted to Grand Jury II that Grand
Jury fails to ndict ! do not think the District,
Attorney Will care to present II 10 another Granu
Jury, nor do believe that a Court would couhteh-
ance its resubmission.' -
BY mutual agreement Of counsel the time ln JUS
tce Fursmans order was extended to July IA