페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

MEMORANDUM.-A copy of the above letter was delivered to A. Oakey Hall this day, about 2 o'clock, who replied, “ As I do not write to Mr. Jones, you can tell him, that there is a stay of proceedings, which carries it to the Supreme Court; and when it comes up, I will thoroughly examine it to see if it is correct, as they frequently put in incorrect proceedings.

J. A. CURTIS. New-York, Jan. 29, 1856.

On the 5th of February, 1856, the District Attorney sent to me, by the hands of R. Busteed, Esq., a yellow-covered publication, on which was printed,

In the Supreme Court.

THE PEOPLE AGAINST THOMAS CARLIN.

RETURN TO CERTIORARI.
A. OAKEY Hall, for the People.
H. L. Clinton and E. W. Stoughton, for the Defendant.

The publication closed with the following :

NEW-YORK GENERAL SESSIONS.

THOMAS CARLIN,

ads.
THE PEOPLE,

> Bill of Exceptions.

HENRY L. CLINTON, Attorney for Defendant.

Filed January 30, 1856.

I certify that there is probable cause for the within Bill of Exceptions, to render it expedient to take the judgment of the Supreme Court thereon. JAMES M. SMITH, Jr., Recorder.

Dated, January 28, 1856.

This is the substance of this new “ Bill of Exceptions." On the 30th January, 1856, the defendant sued out a writ of “ Certiorari” from the Supreme Court; the effect of which was, to remove the indictment, plea, verdict, bill of exceptions, and all proceedings in this trial, to the Supreme Court, for argument; and to stay all proceedings of the General Sessions, until the determination of the Supreme Court thereon.

This proceeding may be customary and right in law; but on the motion to “quash the indictment,” on the 15th Sept., 1855, the Recorder decided that the indictment was properly drawn, and refused to quash. On the trial, he charged the jury that “ Carlin was a public officer, within the meaning of the statute;" and the jury found a verdict of guilty.

On the 22d Dec., 1855, a motion in “arrest of judgment” was argued before the Recorder; and on the 7th January, 1856, after“ due deliberation being had thereon,” he denied the motion. I therefore am at a loss to know how, after all of his decisions, the Recorder could find "probable cause” for a “ Bill of Exceptions,” to carry the case to the Supreme Court. I presume that a “Certiorari” would not have been issued from the Supreme Court, unless this " probable cause” had been certified to by the Recorder. My opinion is, that he had a right, and that it was his duty, under the circumstances, to have sentenced Carlin. Then I suppose the defence would have had the right to take the case up to the Court of Appeals, if they chose. I believe that is the last place where it can be carried. Has the Recorder no confidence in his own judgments ? If he has not, how is it with all the poor devils that he has consigned to the State Prison, in his official capacity? My opinion on this subject may not be sustained by the law; but I believe it to be founded on common-sense, (which is as good as law, any day); and it is very poor law, in my opinion, that has not common-sense for its foundation. The District Attorney had informed my “private counsel,” Richard Busteed, Esq., that the Attorney-General of the State is to argue this “ Bill of Exceptions” for the People. I am

rejoiced to know it, for the District Attorney has refused to let my counsel appear " for the Prosecution, or to represent me under any circumstances ;” and I have yet to learn what the District Attorney has done to further the ends of justice for the “People” in this matter, although he has had printed upon the "yellow-covered” book “A. OAKEY Hall for the People."

JONES TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

115 BROADWAY, NEW-YORK, Feb. 5, 1856. Hon. STEPHEN B. CUSHING,

Attorney-General, &c., Albany, DEAR SIR :

SUPREME COURT.

[graphic]

In this case Carlin, the prisoner, was indicted for malfeasance, in his office of Deputy Sheriff, of this county. He was tried before Mr. Recorder Smith, and after a lengthened trial, and numerous pretexts, was found guilty by the jury.

The Hon. James R. Whiting (now Judge) appeared as counsel for the People, in the Court of General Sessions.

This morning, Mr. Hall (the District Attorney) handed to Mr. Richard Busteed, of this city, (who is my private counsel,) the accompanying return to the Certiorari sued out in the case, and stated to Mr. Busteed, that the Attorney-General would argue the Bill of Exceptions, upon the part of the People, and that I might associate such other counsel as would be agreeable.

I have not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you; and in view of the great principles which I hold to be involved in, and to be upheld by the conviction of such offenders as Carlin, I take this early opportunity of apprising you of the facts.

I will not here speak of the efforts which I have made, and the money I have expended, to see whether what is called justice be a mockery, or a real power in the State. I will, however, remark, that I do not intend to tire by the way, and am happy to find that I shall have the aid of your high position, in the furtherance of my exertions.

I solicit the honor of an immediate reply, so that you may get the cause set down for some day during this term, when you can attend, to argue the exceptions, &c.

If necessary, Mr. Busteed will go to Albany to see you on this subject, and explain the whole case to you, from its root to its topmost leaf. It is my wish (if you have no objection) that Mr. Busteed should confer with you on the subject.

Respectfully,
Your most ob’t,

ARTHUR T. JONES.

THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO JONES.

STATE OF NEW-YORK, ) | ARMS OF

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE STATES

ALBANY, Feb. 6,1856. ARTHUR T. Jones, Esq.,

DEAR SIR : Yours of yesterday is received. The Attorney-General is absent, attending the Chemung Circuit. I, however, expect him every day, and will call his attention to the matter referred to in your letter, immediately on his return.

Mr. Cushing, I think, understands this case pretty thoroughly, and I have no doubt sympathizes with you in your desire to see justice vindicated. I will telegraph you as soon as Mr. Cushing returns.

Very truly yours,

S. H. HAMMOND,

Deputy Attorney-General.

JONES TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

115 BROADWAY, New-York, Feb. 8, 1856. 8. H. HAMMOND, Esq.,

Deputy Attorney-General, &c.,
DEAR SIR:
I beg to thank you for your prompt reply to my letter.

A. Oakey Hall, the District Attorney, who is the “ private counsel” for the Sheriffs, and who is their private adviser in this matter, has afforded me no assistance for a whole year, and has permitted justice to be delayed by ex-Judge Beebe and others, in the most shameful manner; putting me to great expense, and serious loss of time. I am anxious that the case shall be argued this term, or it may have to go off till May, (as I believe that the next general term is not held till that time.) If Mr. Cushing will permit Mr. Busteed to communicate with him on the subject, he will be enlightened upon many matters connected with the case, that he cannot know from any other source. I shall be much obliged for the “ telegraph."

Yours, truly,

ARTHUR T. JONES.

TELEGRAPHIC.

ALBANY, Feb. 11, 1856. A. T. JONES,

115 Broadway. The Attorney-General is in town, and would be happy to confer with Mr. Busteed.

S. H. HAMMOND,

Deputy Attorney-General.

I immediately answered,—“ Mr. Busteed will be at the AttorneyGeneral's office on Wednesday morning.” On Wednesday morning of the 13th February, 1856, Mr. Busteed and I were at the AttorneyGeneral's office, in Albany, where we had the pleasure to make the

« 이전계속 »