페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

“I do solemnly swear, that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New

York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Deputy Sheriff, according to the best of my ability.”

That is the oath that he is required to take. He swears that he will perform the duties of the office.

MR. BEEBE.—I contend that by no law of the land is it made his duty to keep the property three days, or one hour. I say

that the moment he takes possession of the property under the authority of the Sheriff, and by virtue of his appointment, then that property goes into the hands of the Sheriff, and for the non-delivery of that property to other parties, the Sheriff becomes the party, and not the deputy. The difficulty is, that the gentleman's argument lies away at one side, while mine lies behind it; perhaps buried so deep that it will never be reached—but there it is.

MR. WHITING.--You are talking about civil remedy, and not criminal.

MR. BEEBE.—The gentleman charges us in this indictment, and he is the pleader. I subscribe most cheerfully to the skill and ability of the gentleman, and he drew the indictment.

MR. WHITING.–Well, that is a mistake. The gentleman understands more about drawing indictments than I do.

MR. BEEBE.—I understood that it was drawn by the gentleman. He had a novel indictment to draw, and did it as well as he could under the circumstances. Now, sir, what is it for? It is for a specific offence, for doing something; to wit, for taking property. By virtue of what? By virtue of a process of replevin, or for the recovery of property. Now, I say, there is no such thing in law as a process of replevin. The gentleman says, one term is an explanation of the other. Then he should have said, “replevin, that is, a claim for the delivery of personal property." We are bound to know no such word as “replevin.” The law has read it out of existence. If the law said that a rose was stremonium, or that stremonium was a rose, we should be bound to take what the law said, if we were going to indict a party for violating it. The gentleman has nothing to do with the odor. Whether the smell is of stremonium, or as sweet as a rose, has nothing to do with it. We have to do only with what the statute prescribes, and what the law says; and the law says, there is no such process as replevin. With these remarks, I leave the matter in the hands of the court.

Counsel then handed their papers to the Recorder, who took the matter into consideration.

On the 23d September, on my way from New Rochelle to NewYork, I stopped with the "old gray" and my wagon, at the Bridge Hotel; where I was introduced by the worthy proprietor, to a person by the name of Farrington ; who was represented to me to be a Sheriff. As I knew that he was not John Orser, I concluded he must be one of his deputies. I have since learned that he is a Constable. It seems it is the custom of Marine Court Constables to call themselves Sheriffs. I have also learned that Mr. Farrington is a very worthy man. I take pleasure in saying that his manners are those of a gentleman; and it is pleasant for me to be able to speak of one, among all of them that it has been my fate to come in contact with, in terms of respect.

Mr. Farrington told me, that "Carlin kept possession of the horse by the advice of Mr. A. Oakey Hall, the District Attorney; that Carlin acted on his advice; and that he (Farrington) was present when Hall so advised him.”

JONES TO WHITING.

N. Y., Sept. 24, 1855. JAMES R. WHITING, Esq.,

DEAR SIR: When the decision of the Recorder is made known, in the matter of motion to quash indictment against Carlin, please communicate it to me,

At Harlem, yesterday, one of the Deputy Sheriffs told me, that Carlin acted by the advice of A. Oakey Hall, District Attorney, and that he did not give up the horse by his advice! The Deputy said he was present when Hall so advised him.

Your most obedient,

A. T. JONES.

WHITING TO JONES.

NEW-YORK, Sept. 24th, 1855. A. T. JONES, Esq.,

DEAR SIR: So soon as I learn of the decision in the Carlin case, I will advise

you of it.

I do not believe the deputy referred to correctly understood the District Attorney. It cannot be possible that he could be guilty of so much duplicity. Yours, very respectfully,

J. R. WHITING.

JONES TO WHITING.

NEW-YORK, Sept. 25th, 1855. DEAR SIR:

I am not surprised, at your not wishing to believe in the duplicity of Mr. A. Oakey Hall. It is unpleasant to imagine, for a single moment, that any one occupying such a position, with such important trusts, should be guilty of any acts calculated to destroy the confidence of those who look to him, in his official capacity, as their protector. In your

letter to me, on the 17th February last, (in answer to one I addressed to you when in Philadelphia), you say, “The opposition of the District Attorney I anticipated, but did not expect it to appear so soon.” Why should the District Attorney oppose a citizen who was endeavoring to seek protection from the laws of the land, when it was his duty, to give his aid, to accomplish that purpose ?

When Justice Osborne held Carlin to bail, why did Hall instruct the Justice to take Carlin's own recognizance? What right had he to interfere in the matter? Is it his business to order the Justice, as to what bail he is to demand or refuse, in all the cases that come before him ? It strikes me, if he has to run after all the Police Justices in New York, to regulate bail, he will have to employ“ private counsel,” (oftener than he now does,) to assist him in his “many and arduous duties.” Did not Undersheriff Willet tell me, that “Mr. Hall had shown Justice Osborne a great deal stronger law than that?'” (alluding to the statute on which Carlin was held to bail, and indicted ?) Why did he trouble himself to show Osborne that law, unless he was the adviser and sustainer of Carlin ?

Hall once put down the trial of Carlin for the third week in May.

Hall promised me that the motion to quash should be argued on Saturday, the 9th of June.

Hall promised that Carlin should positively be tried during the June term.

Hall acknowledged to me, that he did not doubt the motion to quash the indictment was only made to delay the trial of Carlin.

Hall has permitted Beebe to delay all these proceedings, when he was aware that Beebe had offered to bet me that Carlin would never be tried ; if he was, that he would not be convicted ; and that he (Beebe) had said he would tire me out! and when he (Hall) had admitted that he believed that Beebe was only seeking delay.

Hall has lied to me, by saying, IN YOUR PRESENCE, that he was the “private counsel for the Sheriff, and a personal friend of the Governor,” and afterwards telling me that, “ he had no personal acquaintance with the Governor, but was only his political friend !" which " delicate position" caused him to ask me to employ "private counsel,” to assist him in his duties belonging to him to perform.

Now, sir, facts are stubborn things, and here they are ; admitting of no argument.

As far as my experience goes, I admit, that testimony of Deputy Sheriffs, (when they have put themselves in the position of accomplices), “ should be received with caution,” and perhaps “a conviction should not be asked from a jury upon such evidence, unless corroborated by good and reliable testimony." So I understood the Recorder and yourself to instruct the jurors, in the Cole case, in reference to the testimony of Finlay.

The Deputy Sheriff had no motive in telling me what Hall advised Carlin, in his presence, except to sustain Carlin, by his acting with the advice of the District Attorney. He had nothing to gain by it, and no crimes to be pardoned, to induce him to testify; and as he did not qualify his testimony, I see no reason why it is not good, with all these corroborative facts.

I have no faith in A. Oakey Hall; and there are others, occupying very high official stations, entirely out of his sphere, that think as I do.

You may ask-Why do you wish to injure Mr. Hall in my estimation! My only object is, if you are not fully aware of what he is, to give you all the evidence in my possession, that you may be prepared for him, in any proceedings that he may take, in his official capacity, in this case of Carlin.

Although he has given me permission to "canvass his acts in this and other matters," I only take the liberty to do it in connection with this case.

I had the arguments on the motion to quash taken in short hand, and every word has since been written out, and is in my possession.

If Beebe's argument is right, I think the Governor will have no difficulty in settling the case of the Sheriff

With the hope that these cases will be settled some time between this and the time when Gabriel plays his solo, I remain,

Your most ob't,

ARTHUR T. JONES.

« 이전계속 »