Year: 1872


or sphinx to the general public.


AS PRINCE OF ERIE
he was to the general public person to wonder at
and talk about; as the commodore of the splendid
fleet Of boats that piled up the waters OF the Sound,
with their gorgeous fittings, and the Plymouth
Rock that floating palace with unexceiled music
on board, that conveyed New Workers from the city
to Long Branch through the summer months, and
as colonel Of the Ninth regiment. he was becoming
one OF the most generally known men In the city.
Stokes in his connection with the living Fisk was
also becoming familiar to the general public. As
one OF the uptown


YOUNG BLooDs'
he was well known to large circle of kindred
sports but the rival OF Fisk and his opponent in
the courts as the champion Of Josie Mansfield he.
too, was also II not man Of note, one good deal
spoken Of and easily recognized in the streets. In
connection with the dead Fisk he has made his
name notorious In the annals OF criminal courts
for all time.


THE RESULT OF THE TRIAL
yesterday, In which the best information given US
shows that seven OF the jury were for conviction OF
the capital offence and five for the minor offence of
manslaughter in the third degree, raises the ques
ton among the uninitiated as to whether


STOKES SHALL BE BAILED OR REMAIN IN PRISON
to await another trial. Upon this point there is no
special legislation and no actual precedents to
make either act positive or imperative In this
case, according to the tally given of the jury at
their return to the Court, though not strictly off,
cial, 1t appears that seven were for conviction.
This Is majority Of the jury, and may prove suf-
cent cause to the District Attorney to hold the ac
cused IN person between this time and the time
that may be fixed upon for new trial. Under
similar circumstances the party charged has gen.
orally been


HELD FOR TRIAL WITHOUT BAIL.


There are instances even where the offence CON-
mitted was not capital, when the accused, on dsa-
greement of jury, has been held without bail fora
second trial. II the prosecuting officer in such a
case refuses bail 1t would hardly follow that In q
murder case greater laxity of rule would be ad-
mittcd. But as before stated, there is no special
legislation provided and no precedent one way or
the other. 1t is left to the prosecuting officer for
the people to determine whether the application
for bail to the Court be sanctioned and allowed on
his part or opposed by him. The courts are gov
officer in this regard. The District Attorney
Si w al al Se cS Sy ms tSe
the main points of O defence which, If he had known
before, he could probably have upset, or may think
he can, by some information which he could not
use on the first trial, but which would be available
on second; by the public feeling as to the crime
ana the se or or e IT, All go to
the Courts in granting or Withholding bail from q
person charged with the serious offence Of murder
trict Attorney, though the Courts, in their dscre
ton, have not fixed the amount at the maximum
figure claimed h for by the prosecnton IN In criminal
called the common law of England.


BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS
State such parts OF the common law OF England,
as were In force in the colony of New York on the
10Th day of April, l77i. were retained In the old





or altered or were repugnant to the constitution,
continued as the law OF this state, subject to such
alterations as the Legislature should make concern
ing the same. The colOnists have been considered
as bringing with them only such parts OF the law Of
their own situation; and the particular
laws and customs OF special districts Of England
nal Cases therefore our Courts follow the laws
rulings and precedents of the English Courts In
like Instances There the precedent maintains
that in q capital offence, where the
n MAJORITY OF A JURY
are In favor Of conviction the prisoner is held for
retrlal, without BAIL The Judges Of Assize were in
the habit OF sending recalctrant or disagreeing
ures to some lone part on the verge OF the county
all but sufficient nourishment TO maintain life, and
perhaps OF all means OF light through the weary
night but what a


would AFFORD them. In some cases. where the treat
ment failed in its effect and juries had to be dis
charged, special commissions have been appointed
to try the accused This was only rcsOrted to when
public feeling had been greatly aroused by


THE ATRooITY OF THE SINGLE CRIME ITSELF,
or where crime of such character was rife in any
particular county or locality But while specua-
ton Is at work as regards the action OF District
Attorney Garvin In the case OF the disagreement of
the jury and the probable bailing out being held
for another trial without bail, we can state here
that without bail


STOKES WILL BE HELD
and will be put upon second trial In the October
term The question is Will the venue be changedY
Upon the two pOnts-the holding for trial without
bail and the change Of venue-we have one notable
precedent in the case Of the people OF this State
against


POLLY BODINE,
tried on Staten Island, Richmond county, before
Judge Edm0nds in 1874. Polly or Mary BOdne was
arraigned on five indictments-One for the murder
OF her brothers. wife and Of his child for OF
her inhabited dwelling house; for burglary, and for
having received stolen goods.


She was tried on one OF the indictments for mur-
der IN the county OF Richmond, and the Jury, not
agreeing, were discharged. Another attempt


TO TRY HER
was made on the same Indictment In that county,
which failed because OF the impractibiity Of OBJ
in all, were removed into the Supreme Court. and
by that Court sent down to the New York Circuit to
oner was placed at the bar to be tried ON an in
dictment for the


MURDER OF EMELNE HoUsEMAN.
The prisoner, by counsel, objected that the said
ground that the case had been removed from the
TIE SUPREME Court by e ssued o1
part % sse ssSs tn and p,.t al
Circuit that the allowance Of the said writ OF |
certtOrdrt by Circuit Judge was illegal and void
and that the said issue was not depending in the
Supreme Court, whereupon the District Attorney |
Of the county OF Richmond produced and fled In |
open court certified copy Of rule Of the Supreme
Court In the words fOowing:-
Indictment for the murder OF Emeline House. |
man.


Indictment for the murder of Ann Eliza House.
man.


Indictment for burglary.


Indictment for receiving stolen goods.


Indictment for arson.


motion was made to change the place OF trial of
The prisoner upon these several Indictments and
that the body OF the said Mary Bodine be commit
ted to the custody of the Sheriff OF the city and
county of New York until the said indictments
have been held or disposed Of according to law, or
until the further order of the Court. The motion
was Overrued and the empanelling OF jury to try
the case was proceeded with; but.
AFTER THREE WEEKS EFFORT TO OBTAIN A JURY,
and not succeeding therein, counsel for the
prisoner stated that now reasonable effort to OBJ