Year: 1872




Judge Fancher. voght. In the custody OF keeper
OF the city Prison, was produced before the Court
in obedience TO o writ of habeas corpus granted q
few days since. AS this is a some what remarkable
case a brief


STATEMENT OF THE FACTS


will not ne out OF place.. The alleged murder and
robbery occurred the 1st OF October 1871, at
Brussels, in the Kingdom Of Belgium, and the
victim was one Chevalier du Bois de Bianco, rich
nobleman Carl voght was gardener in the en-
ploy OF the Baron who lived In his chateau near
Brussels. On the morning OF the I'd day OF
October the Baron was found dead In his bed his
chateau on fire, and large amount OF personal
property, consisting OF bonds, money and jewelry
were missing. V0ght also missing. He was
suspected, tracked, and 1t was found that he had
dren and run away with another woman. He was
traced TO New York, from here to Philadelphia, in
which city he was arrested and Ia his possession,
well as in the possession OF number OF
bankers, was found u large quantity or the stolen
bonds the bankers having received the bonds from
Voght for collection. voght was brought on TO New
York, and Governor Hoffman issued his warrant
commanding the Sheriff 10 deliver him over TO
the Belgian authorities In order tnat ne might be
taken 10 Brussels and trled There being no treaty
between the general government and the Kingdom
writ OF habeas corpus, which was granted by Judge
Curtis, OF the Superior Court, who, alter hearing
the law unconsttutionaL holding that no State
could have foreign Intercourse. and to the general
government belonged solely and exclusively the
right to extradite, and ordered the discharge OF
the accused From this decision the Attorney
General OF the State appealed to the Court OF Ap-
peals, which Court sustained the decision OF the
Court bel0w-holding the warrant OF Governor
Holman illegal and in violation OF the constitution
Upon the return yesterday to the


WRIT OF HABEAs CORPUS


Attorney General r Q: Barlow and A. s. Sulii-
half OF the people, while the prisoner was repre-
sented 10y Messrs. William +. Kintzng and Charles
NJ. Marsh. The Belgian government was repre-
nta1I I.u


Counsel for the prisoner stated to the Court that
the accused had been in custody ever since the
April an Indictment had been found against him
for larceny in stealing certain bonds and bringing
ae ths So t m anm 1@ ,ns oesn
the opportunity OF q trial, although for the last
seven months he has tried, but tried In vain, to
get a trial. He insisted that upon the Governors
warrant Voght stood discharged by the action Of
the Court OF Appeals upon the larceny. He there
fore asked his discharge rom the indictment
found against him.


Mr. Sullivan briefly reviewed the facts OF the
case and pronounced the killing OF Cnevaiier da
on record. The prisoner, he went on 10 say now
stood In Court with his hands red with blood and
his garments crimsOncd OF this crime he goes
unwhipped or justice, he cannot be sent back to
Brussels, where the crime was committed IN con-
Belgium and the United States. Shall he be
discharged now for the lesser offence or
larcenyY There was, he said, law upon our
statute book which says that any person who shall
steal in foreign country and bring such property
into this state snail be guilty OF larceny. FOR tnlS
offence Voght stood indicted by the Grand Jury.
The reason why he had not been brought to trial
upon this indictment was because the authorities
hoped the Court OF Appeals would reverse the
action OF the Court below, and then he would be
sent back to the country whose laws he had yiO-
lated. Ever since the decision OF the Court OF APP
peals the authorities had made every effort to get
these witnesses from Brussels, but he must confess
so lar he had failed, and he could not say when
they could be obtained


Mr. Kintzing said that after this statement cer-
tainly the prisoner was entitled to his discharge,
as no citizen, however humble or guilty, can be
detained in prison for an indefinite period.
ACTION OF JUDGE FANCHER.
Judge Fancher said that he agreed with counsel,
and that however 1t was to he regretted that the
ends OF justice should be defeated, still he had but
one duty to perform under the circumsta stances-that
was, to discharge the prisoner.


SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS.
The writ was handed up to the Judge, and he
| endorsed his decision on the back OF the writ.
| Voght who, meantime had occupied seat in the
! back part OF the court room, and by the side OF
whom was the young woman who has singuarly
| cung to him during his long Incarceration, i'm
medately upon the news being communicated to
| him by the interpreter OF the Court jumped up
1t several kisses, aud thanked him for what he had
done in his behalf


| HEIRS AFTER TUE STOLEN PROPERTY.
| After the prisoner lett the Court he was taken
into custody under civil order of arrest, issued
few days ago At the instance OF the heirs OF the
murdered chevaiier, who viii endeavOr to recover
some OF the stolen property back IL being said that
thousand dollars worth OF property. He was
| conveyed by the sheriff in carriage to Ludlow
! Street JAIL where he Will doubtless remain during
| further legal delays before trial.