Volume 2 — Wheeler's Criminal Cases

<p>This case was fully argued in the Supreme Court room, before Chief Justice Tilghman, on the 11th and 14th instant. Messrs. C. J. Ingersoll and C. S. Coxe, for the prosecution, and Messrs. P. A. Brown and Keating for the defendant. On the 21st inst. the Chief Justice delivered the following decision:</p>

Jacob Barker was charged at common law, and under the statute, for sending or delivering a challenge, pursuant to the act of the legislature, passed 1816. To which he pleaded not guilty. He was tried in May Term, and found guilty on all the counts; and at this term he moved in arrest of judgment, (and was heard at great length,) on the grounds detailed in the following decision:

The indictment in this case had been found in July tevm last, and the case was now moved for trial by the District Attorney.

<p>| Rape.</p> <p>On an mdictment for a no^definitepe8 riod fixed by law to infer puberty; it depends more stitution Cand habits ofbody thanupoXage’.</p>

<p>Murder.</p> <p>Form of Challenge.</p> <p>4 Blac. Com. 198. 1 Hale, 448. 3 Chitty’s C. L. 930. 1 Hale, 485, 486. Foster, 296.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus Homine Replegiando.</p>

The defendant was indicted for erecting a building ° ° against the act entitled “ an act for the more effectual preventfen 0f fires in the city of New York,” passed the 9th J 1 1 of April, 1823. The building was erected in Elm street. ° The line, or fire limits, begins on the East River, and passes through Montgomery street and Canal street, to the Hudson River. The line runs through Elm street, and includes the west side.

Mr. Gautier was indicted under the act of the Assem» bly of the state of New York, passed the 15th day of April, 1817, entitled “an act to regulate sales by public auction,” for selling goods at public auction, not having been appointed in pursuance of that or any other act of the assembly of this state.

<p>The facts of the case, and the law arising from them, are embraced in the charge of the president.</p>

<p>Piracy.</p> <p>The authorities all collected in Crim. L. C. vol. 1, p. 475, 476.</p>

•On Friday, -the 10th of September, a.t 9 o’clock in the morning, commenced the trial upon an indictment found at the present term of the court against William Gourlay, for murder. The following jurors were examined and sworn, viz.: Calvin W. Howe, William Finch, Daniel Oakley, John S. Bradford, Nathaniel Rathbone, Smith J ’ 7 Lane, Daniel Banvard, Samuel Maverick, Samuel Dixon, Dennison Wood, Lyman Fitch, and John Reid.

<p>The jury were called, and the following oath administered to them: “You do swear that you will true answers give “ touching your competency as an impartial juror between “ the people of the state of New-York, and Thomas Ward, “ the prisoner at the bar.”</p> <p>After they were sworn, the following questions were propounded to them : “ Have you heard any thing of this case ?” “ Do you feel any prejudice for or against the prisoner at the bar ?”</p> <p>Upon their answering in the negative to the last question they took their seats.</p> <p>The prisoner was charged in an indictment for manslaughter, with having wilfully and feloniously killed Albert Robinson, by a blow inflicted on the 17th of October last, on his temple, by the rung of a cart</p> <p>The prisoner was a young man of good appearance and respectable deportment, apparently about 26 years of age, and by occupation a cartman. The testimony in relation to the facts was remarkably clear' and consistent. The witnesses were evidently persons of intelligence and veracity, and the principal question for the jury to try rested upon the character and legal description of the of-fence.</p> <p>Mr. Maxwell opened the case on the part of the people, and made an exposition of the facts he expected to prove, and of the law as applicable to them. He cited 3 Chitty’s C. L. "730. in notis. The testimony in support of the prosecution was then introduced.</p> <p>Dr. Marinus Willet, junr. surgeon of the New York Hospital, to’which the deceased had been taken, testified that he examined the head of Robinson, and found little evidence of serious injury on the external part of it. There were symptoms, however, of a compression of the brain, and there was a bruise over the right eyelid, extending from above the temple, 2 1-2 or 3 inches down upon the cheek, which appeared to be such a one as might have been produced by a blow. The patient was brought in on "the evening of Saturday, and on Sunday evening the operation of trepanning was performed by Dr. Mott. The scull was found to be fractured, but not so badly but the patient, had no other injury existed, might have' recovered by the application of ordinary remedies. The death of Robinson, which took place about 3 o’clock on Monday morning, was occasioned, as witness believes, not by the fracture, but by the rupture of a blood-vessel, the artery of the dura mater, and the extravasation of blood on the brain-. Believes the blow to have occasioned the death.</p> <p>Peter Bogert. a cartman, testified, that he was returning home on the evening of the affray; it was between six and seven o’clock, not very dark, but the lamps were lighted. Three carts were passing down Chamber street; the first Ward’s, the second Fash’s, and the third that of the witness. Observed Robinson, the deceased, passing down the flagging, which is laid, transversely, from the corner of Chamber and Chapel to the east side of Hudson street. He had a tin kettle in his hand, and was going the same way with Ward. Being within” about two feet of Ward’s cart, (who was upon a walk,) he turned round, and seized his horse by the head with his left hand. The horse sprung from him, and turned upon the side walk, with so much power and" violence as to have nearly thrown Ward from his cart. Ward was very near the side walk at the time, and as he was turning into Chapel street, and deceased into Hudson street, where those streets form an acute angle, the further they advanced, the less they were incommoded by each other. When Robinson" thus took hold of the horse’s bridle, Ward laid hold of his monachie, and threw it at him. [Monachie is said to be a Dutch word, and was explained to mean a "fore rang of the cart, to which the lines were occasionally made fast, about three feet long, three inches by two and a half in thickness, at the bottom, and lessening almost to a point at the top, usually made of oak or hickory.] The monachie thus thrown by Ward did not hit deceased; but the latter picked it up, drew it across his shoulders with both hands, in a threatening attitude towards Ward, as if with intention to strike him. Ward’s cart, however, had at this time so far advanced that he was not within striking distance, being about three feet from the tail of the cart. There* upon, and. almost simultaneously, Ward stopped his horse, stepped to the tail of his cart, sprang from it towards Robinson, and, in a momentary scuffle, wrested the monachie from his hand, shoved him back a foot or two, and with both hands hold of the instrument, knocked him down with it by a blow on the right side of the head. At the moment of striking, Ward said to deceased, “ You damn’d son of a bitch, a little more and you would have thrown me from my cart!” But the word and the blow seemed together, and witness never knew an affray more rapid from its commencement to its conclusion. It seemed to be the transaction of a moment. Robinson fell, and Ward jumped upon his cart, taking the monachie with him, passed on about 25 feet, then stopped, hooked his wheel, and came back ; but seeing Mr. Ryder with the man up, he again mounted his cart, and rode off altogether.</p> <p>On his cross-examination, witness testified that he knew neither Ward nor Robinson previous to the transaction. Ward had a leather trank and a roll of carpeting on his cart at the time. Deceased had no offensive weapon, but was in no danger from Ward’s horse, which, when seized, was quite restive. When Ryder took up deceased, he called him by name, and also spoke to prisoner, and said, £- Ward ! for shame ! you ought not to .. , , _ ,. strike a man so.” Could not say whether Robinson was intoxicated or not, nor for what reason he seized the horse. Was knocked down by the side of witness’ cart; done very quick ; and the whole almost one act. Robinson picked up the monachie by the wheel—was a stouter man than Ward.</p> <p>Daniel Fash, a cartman," who followed Ward at the time of the affray, confirmed, in all its essential particulars, the statement made by Bogert. ' He saw the monachie thrown at Robinson by Ward. It flew over his head, at the distance of about two feet above it. On his cross-examination, he stated that he remained at the place until Mr. Ryder had raised up deceased. The hat of the latter was not struck off by the blow. As witness was going down Hudson street, and Ward down 'Chapel, it brought Robinson between their carts, but the further off as they progressed, as the streets diverged in different directions.</p> <p>Richard G. Ryder, who was also a cartman, came Tip just at the time Robinson held the monachie in his hand in an attitude of hostility to Ward. Saw Ward strike with the stick. It was but one blow. 'The man fell, and witness jumped off to his relief. Found it was Robinson, whom he knew; and, seeing that the person who struck him was the prisoner, whom he also knew, he cried “ shame ” to Ward. Robinson laid lifeless as a log, and totally insensible. Ward removed off a few feet, where he remained. Witness raised up deceased, and asked him if he knew him. Deceased nodded assent,; witness helped him across the street, washed the blood from his face, and, at the instance of a young gentleman who came up, bathed his wounds also with spirits. Deceased then jumped upon his feet, refused to he carried home by witness on his cart, jerked away, and said he could go home alone. Acted as if he was intoxicated, for he went down Chamber street, which was not his way home. Had known deceased twelve or fourteen years. Heard Ward only say, in reply to a suggestion of witness that a cartman had struck deceased with the rung of his cart, that it was not with his rung, but «.with his monachie.” Ward gave no indications of regret. Had known him about eighteen months, and considered him a mild and worthy young man. Robinson formerly drove a cart. Did not speak until his head had been washed by the spirits.</p> <p>Dr. Willet was called again, and stated some further particulars relative to the trepanning. A piece of fractured bone was removed. The rupture of the blood vessel could not have been occasioned by the trepanning, for the blood on the brain was not only extravasated, but coagulated.</p> <p>The defence of the prisoner was opened by John L. Graham, Esq., in a neat and appropriate speech, in which he commented with force and eloquence on the law and the testimony as applied to the case.</p> <p>In behalf of the prisoner it was proved, by Robert Castles, that the deceased appeared to be intoxicated in the afternoon of the affray, and by Peter ITodine, and Joseph Archer, that he was a bad tempered man, passionate, perverse, and occasionally intemperate.</p> <p>Ralph Olmstead, Robert Hyslop, Rufus L. Lord, Henry Hepburn, Charles Squire, Calvin W. Howe, and Allen C. Lee, all respectable merchants in the city, testifled in substance that they had been "acquainted with the prisoner for three or four years past; that he had uniformly manifested a mild and amiable disposition, rather timid than quarrelsome, and more disposed to yield than rigorously to assert his rights. That he was unh formly temperate, courteous apd obliging, industrious and honest, and supported by "his labor a mother and two or three sisters.</p> <p>Dr. Jeremiah D, Fowler, of Mount Pleasant, the birthplace of the prisoner, testified that he had known him about 17 years, and from a boy. His disposition had always appeared to be mild and good ; and his connections jn Westchester were respectable.</p> <p>Robert K. Foster had known the prisoner from 1810 to 1816, during which time he was an apprentice to witness, and appeared to possess the best disposition of any apprentice witness ever had. Witness was a' shoemaker. Prisoner served out the full time of his engagement without indentures.</p> <p>Dr. Richard L. Walker considered trepanning a dangerous operation. Patients often die from the inflammation occasioned by it, who might have recovered from the injury it was intended to remedy. The coagur lated blood referred to "by Dr. Willet, might have been occasioned by exposure to the air, nor would its coagulation prevent it from being- absorbed. Witness could pot decide with certainty, even had he performed the operation himself; whether the death was occasioned by the monachie or by the trepanning. Did not see. the patient. Had known a rapture of a blood vessel from extreme passion. Persons of violent temper were liable to apoplexy from a surcharge of blood to the head,</p> <p>Dr. Valentine Mott, who performed the operation of trepanning the deceased in the hospital, testified' that his head was broken, and his death occasioned by the injury, and not by the trepanning. Of this he spoke positively, and with certainty.</p> <p>The testimony here closed; and the cause was ably summed up by Mr. Anthon and Mr. Price, with the following eloquent speech by Doctor Graham, in defence of the prisoner;</p>

This interesting cáse was called up on the 5th inst., when it appeared that all the defendants except Henry Zeller had pleaded “not guiltyand he being requested to plead, this was objected to by Evans and Buchanan; it appearing on the face of the record that he had been examined before the grand jury, as a witness; and further proof being offered, that he was inveigled to appear in that character by the prosecution, who promised that no indictment had been or should be…

The prisoner was indicted for an assault upon Eliza Morrison, an infant of about seven years of age, with an intent to commit a rape, ' The injury upon the body of Eliza was proved by the testimony of an old lady who resided in the house where the crime was perpetrated. She being but seven years of age, and not appearing to understand the nature of an oath, was not sworn.

This was an indictment in Jones Superior Court, at the October Term, 1823, against the prisoner, John M. Williams, for the murder of his wife; and such was the extraordinary excitement produced on the public mind by the unparalleled cruelty and depravity which marked the features of this transaction, that it was not until three full panels of forty eight jurors each, had been successively summoned and tendered to the prisoner, that a Jury, omni exceptionis majoris, were…

The defendant was tried at the last term, on an indictment alleging that he obtained from one Hammelin three tubs of butter by a fraudulent pretence.

This was an indictment found by the Grand Jury for the county of Suffolk, at the November term, 1823, of the Municipal Court for the city of Boston. The cause was continued, and afterwards assigned for Friday, January 9th, 1824. The court opened at 9 o’clock, A. M. INDICTMENT.

<p> The following preliminary remarks are explanatory of the case. </p> <p>The constitution of the United States confers on congress the power “ to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.” Art. 1. s. 8.</p> <p>“ The Federalist” (No. 42) says this power “ belongs with equal propriety to the general government; and is a still greater improvement on the articles of confederation. These articles contain no provision for the case of offences against the law of nations; and consequently leave it in the power of any indiscreet member to embroil the confederacy with foreign nations. The provision of the federal articles on the subject of piracies and felonies, extends no farther than to the establishment of courts for the trials of these offences. The definition of piracies might, perhaps, without inconveuiency, be left to the law of nations; though a legislative definition of them is found in most municipal codes.”</p> <p>On the 30th April. 1790, congress passed “ an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” (among others, the crime of piracy,) the 8th sec. of which is in these words:</p> <p>11 And be it enacted, That if any person or persons shall commit upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, i3as^n^ orbay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, murder or robbery, or any other offence which if committe^ w^hiti the body of a county, would by the laws of the United States be punishable with death; or if any captain or mariner of any ship or other vessel, shall piratically arid •feloniously run away with such ship or vessel, or. any goods or merchandize to the value of fifty dollars, or yield up such ship or vessel volimtarily to any pirate; or if any seaman shall lay violent hands upon his commander, thereby to hinder and prevent his fighting in defence of his ship or goods committed to his trust, or shall make a revolt in the ship; every such offender shall be deemed, taken and adjudged to be a pirate and felon, and being thereof convicted, shall suffer death: and the trial of crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, shall be in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may first be brought.”</p> <p>At the February term of the supreme court of the United States, 1818, however, there came on the case of the United States v. Palmer et al., certified from the circuit court for the Massachusetts district. Palmer and others, citizens of the "United States, had gone upon the high seas, entered and robbed the Industria Raffaeli, a Spanish ship, of various articles. In this" case, the question arose, (to use the language of the chief justice,) “ whether this act extends farther than to American citizens, or to persons on board American vessels, or to offences committed against citizens of the United States. The constitution having conferred on congress the power of defining and punishing piracy, there can be no doubt of the right of the legislature to enact laws punishing pirates, although they may be foreigners, and may have committed no particular offence against the United States. The only question is, has the legislature enacted such a law ? Do the words of the act authorize the courts of the union . „ „ to mfhct its penalties on persons who are not citizens of the United States, nor sailing under their flag, nor offending particularly against them.”</p>

The prisoner was charged with the murder of Palmer Warren. EVIDENCE.

The prisoner was arraigned for the murder of Jonathan Jewett, by counselling and aiding him to hang himself in prison, to avoid the ignominy of a public execution, to which he had been sentenced for the murder of his father. ’ , „ . . The indictment contained two counts.

The facts of this case appeared as follows:—Judge Livingston issued warrants against Captain Skinner, Don Manuel H. Aguirre, and Mr. Delano, for “ knowingly being concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming, in the port of New York, two ships, called the Curiazo and Horatio, with the intent that they should be employed in the servjce 0f SOme foreign prince or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects of some other foreign prince or state, with whom…

In this case it appears that a number of those religious people called “Albrights,” (who agree in doctrine with, but differ in discipline from, the Methodist Episcopal Church,) had assembled at the house of a Mr. Bender, a member of that society, for the purpose of religious worship.

Mr. Maxwell called a number of witnesses to prove the felony, and then offered to read the examination of the prisoner taken before the committing magistrate, and called Mr. Hatfield to prove the handwriting of the magistrate.

The prisoner was indicted for the murder of his broth* er jogeph Tuhi, on the 3d of May, 1820. The facts, ' r ' . as they appeared in the testimony, were, that the father *e deceased and the prisoner were dead, and their mother bad become the wife of Gideon Harry; John lived with his mother and step father, and Joseph had for some time previous to his death, lived with his grandmother.

<p>Misdemeanor.</p> <p>It is the practice of the Court of Sessions of New York, where a juror appears by his to own answer to be biassed or prejudiced, to set him aside without the formality of a challenge. Where a juror has expressed his sentiments as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, or has given vent to his feelings as to the result of the trial, he will be set aside by the court. 4 Harg. St. Tr. 748. Hawk. C. 2. c. 43 % 28. And a peer or lord of parliament may challenge himself on the trial of a. commoner. Co. Lit, 156. Hawk. C. 2. c. 43. See post.</p>

In this case the prisoner was indicted for obtaining from the captain of a vessel certain goods belonging to the firm , . , . , , ? of Titus & Townsend, stating that lie had been sent by them for the property. Townsend was introduced and stated that he did not send for them, and that he thought it probable his partner was out of the city at the time, but could not say with certainty. The goods were never delivered to Titus, and Townsend.

It appeared by the testimony of witnesses that on the night of the 16th of November, 1823, the store of Messrs. Andrew Martine & Hall, No. 147 Chathany-street, was broken open, and a quantity of merchandize - was taken therefrom.

Bleeker and another were indicted for conspiracy to ob-ta¡n from q_ certain goods by fraudulent means. Maxwell, in opening the case, stated, that in addition to the acts defendants in the particular transaction alluded to in the indictment, he should in the course of the trial introduce evidence to show that their dealings with several other individuals had been accompanied by circum- , . stances indicative of a criminal collusion. Such evidence was accordingly- offered.

This case came oil to be argued before the supreme court on exceptions taken to the indictment in behalf of the prisoner. The exceptions were—That the mortal wounds alleged to have occasioned the death were pot positively alleged to have been given by the prisoner, but were only to be collected by intendment or implication; and that the length and depth of the wounds alleged were not described to be of any dimensions.

The defendants were indicted for a conspiracy. The indictment stated, that; ¡ The defendants being workmen and journeymen in the art, mystery, and manual occupation of cordwainers, on the 18th October, 1809, &c. unlawfully, perniciously, and deceitfully designing and intending to form and unite themselves into an unlawful club and combination, and to make and ordain unlawful by-laws, rules, and orders among themselves, and thereby to govern themselves and other workmen in…

<p>n Robbery of the</p> <p>Rowing. t]le carrier of the States, ^r u-" therpersonentrusted therewith, of such mail, by stoppmg him on the highway, demanding the surrender °f the mail, and at the same time showing weaPons calculat®d to take his life, such as pistols ^ or dirks, putting Hm in fear of his life, and obtaining possession of the mail by the means aforesaid, against the will of the carrier, is such a robbing of the mail, and such a putting the life of the carrier or person entrusted .th ere with in jeopardy, by the use of dangerous weapons, as will bring the offence within the following terms of the 19th section of the act of congress of the 30 th April, 1810, entitled “An act regulating the post office establishment,” to wit; “ or if in effecting such robbery of the mail, the first time, the offender shall wound the person having the custody thereof, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, such offender or offenders shall suffer death.”</p> <p>Standinsmute on a charge of felonv against the laws of the United States is equivalent to a nlea of not iruiltv ®</p>

<p>Indictment for having aided AND ABETTED IN THE ROBBEry of the Mail, &c. - ■</p> <p>The convict tíon„of a Pel‘" son for a crime in the circuit court of the United States, is the most conclusive evidence against an accessory, in another circuit, that such a crime was committed.</p> <p>Putting the mail carrier in fear, and his life in peril or danger, is putting life in jeopardy within the meaning of the act of congress. The jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States, in criminal cabes, is confined to offences committed within the district for which those courts respectively sit, where they are committed on land.</p> <p>Judgment arrested, because the caption of the indictment stated, “ at a circuit court of the United States of America, in and for the Pennsylvania district:” it appearing the state of Pennsylvania had been divided, by an act of congress, passed subsequently to the presentment of the grand jury, but previously to the trial, into two districts, one called the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and the other the western district of Pennsylvania.</p> <p>tionofthTpre" sidmgjudge is to the certificate of a record made by the clerk of a o^the^United States, that it is his certificate, or that the seal is that or that thTiecord is in legal form: it is sufficient if the -alt.cybe to the record,</p>

<p>For the law upon this sub ject, see vol. 1. p. 330. 515.</p>

This was an indictment against the prisoners for the nurder of one Titus Oliver, which offence was alleged to lave been perpetrated on the 28th day of June, 1822. The facts developed on the trial, so far as they were naterial, were substantially as follows: About dusk, on the vening of the 28th day of June, the defendants fell in with ds deceased and his wife at the place of residence of the x liter.

At a circuit court held in this county, before his honour Judge Thompson, came on the trial of Mr. Tracy, on an indictment for a libel on Morgan Lewis, Esq., chief justice of this state. The indictment was found ata court of general sessions in October last, and was removed by certiorari into the supreme court.

assigned by the court. The Court opened at 11 o’clock; the Grand Jury were sworn and charged, and the Petit Jury called, and their excuses heard. Richard Hatfield, Esq. Clerk. Johnson, stand up and . , , . , , , hola up your right hand. The prisoner was charged in an indictment as follows: “ City and County of New York, ss.

<p>MURDER.</p> <p>The dying ¡declarations - of a party mur ■dered may be given in evidence when made under a full belief that he will not survive.</p> <p>Perhaps they may be receiv’d when there is a faint and ling-recovery36 by the" sufferer. (See note p. 398.) A. was stabbed with a dagger in the evening, and the next morning (he being very low and could hardly speak) his affidavit was taken,wherein he stated, that B. stabbed him. He was then taken to the hospital, and died in nine days. It was held the affidavit could not be read as the dying declaration of A. no evidence being offered that induced a belief that he was mortally certain he would not survive. The Court, and not the jury, are to decide upon the admissibility of dying declarations.</p>

On Tuesday, February 3d, the prisoner was arraigned on an indictment for the murder of Othello Church, to which he pleaded not guilty. On being asked if he was ready for trial, he answered in the negative, as he had not sufficient counsel, and was unable to employ others. The court - informed him that if he had any choice in counsel he could then make his election: prisoner requested that Fletcher M. Haight and Felix Tracy.

<p>Libel.</p> <p>Truth, when may be given in evidence or injustification or to rebut the presumption of malice, on indictmentfor libel.</p>

<p>Mr. Tillotson opened the case on the part of the United States,' and presented to the jury the outlines of the evidence which would be adduced. He said the murder was committed on the high seas, in 1818. The brig Holkar sailed from the port of N. Y. in Oct. 1818, under Captain Brown, and a coloured crew, with the exception of one man. The brig sailed for Curacoa, and reached the port of her destination. She took in a return cargo ; and while on the high seas, the crew rose, mutinied, and murdered Captain Brown, the mate of the vessel, and a Captain Humphreys, who was a passenger on board. The District Attorney stated the difficulties in procuring testimony, after a lapse of six years, but said that he should present every thing that could be reached.</p> <p>EVIDENCE ON THE PART OF THE STATE.</p> <p>He then called Thomas 31' Cready, who is a clerk in the Custom House. Witness produced the register of the Holkar, which has never been surrendered, dated March 5, 1818. The vessel cleared for Curacoa, October 18, 1818. She was an American vessel, owned by Richard Cole, and Samuel Brown was the master. The list of the crew was produced and read—■ an objection to the reading having been overruled by the court. The name of the prisoner at the bar was entered John Robinson.</p> <p>John G. Bogart, proved the notarial list, which corresponded with the entry in his register. He shipped the crew, hut could not identify the prisoner at the bar, although he had some recollection of his face.</p> <p>Joseph Lyon bad some property coming home in the Holkar when she left Curacoa, but he had never been on board of her. The property was insured by the Mercantile Insurance Company, who paid the amount insured, to Mills, Milton, & Company, to whom it had been made over a few months after the loss of the Holkar. There was no suit against the Company.</p> <p>James Flynn, one of the branch pilots, knew Captain Brown before he commanded the Holkar. He was a stout square man, about 5 feet 9, with large black whiskers. Two of his front upper teeth projected beyond his lip, which gave him a very peculiar appearance. Has never seen him since he left in the Holkar, on Sunday morning, October 18, 1818. He has no recollection of the prisoner. All the crew were black excepting the mate. If there was any other, he was of a copper or dark colour.</p> <p>Diana Valentine:— Witness remembers the brig Holkar—her husband shipped part of the crew; does not know exactly when, but thinks it was about five years ago. Hor husband kept a sailor’s boarding house at 63 Bancker street. It was in the fall of the year, and the Holkar sailed on Sunday morning: does not know the name of the captain; he was a stout man with large heavy whiskers ; one of his teeth projected out, but does not know whether it was his upper or lower tooth: remembers that her husband shipped the prisoner at the bar, and a man by the name of Harry Cook: the prisoner went by the name of Tom Jones; he' did not hoard there, but was at the house a great deal. The brig lay at the time at the left hand side of Dover street wharf. Was on the wharf at the timé she sailed, and saw Mr. Conklin and Mr. Spence ; did not see the prisoner again for three years. (Witness went up to the prisoner to see him, has no doubt that he is the man shipped by her husband.) Captain Cole commanded the brig-before Captain Brown.</p> <p>Cross-examined by Counsel for prisoner.—Has lived in Bancker street for six years, does not know Oliver King. Saw the prisoner two or three days before Johnson was hanged, in the street, and was well acquainted with her. The day before Johnson was hung, Mr. Conklin came for witness to come and see if it was the man ; did not remember that he was on board the Holkar till re-minded of it by the cook. Her first husband’s name was John Thompson ; knows that one of captain Brown’s teeth was out; remembered that it was on Sunday the Holkar sailed. Harry Cook called him Tom Jones, on board the Holkar ; saw him three or four times since ; can’t say Oliver King shipped on board Holkar; four years since she saw Oliver King. About three years ago saw Jones, and spoke to him; had heard that that the Holkar was lost, but he did not strike her as being one of the men on board ; Harry Cook was a large stout man.</p> <p>Mr. Bogart called again. A man by the name of John Thompson shipped the prisoner : recollects that Thompson became security for the prisoner, 16th October, 1818, and received his advance, as appears by his register. The crew were all coloured. Knew Captain Brown, does not recollect any thing about his person, only that he was a large man.</p> <p>Azel Conklin, (one of the city constables) was on the.wharf on Sunday morning, when the Holkar sailed, and remembers that the crew consisted of coloured people. - Does not know Captain Brown; he was a stout portly man, he was pointed out to the witness as being the captain—black hair and large^whiskers. Knew John Thompson, and has often seen Diana—thinks she was on the wharf at the time ; knows that Thompson shipped some of the crew, was told so by him. Happened to be passing at the time and remembers remarking:—“ I should not like to go to sea with that crew.”</p> <p>Cross-examined.—Bancker street was of a very bad character ; has very often to go to that street to look for rogues, &c. but had never heard any thing against the house of Thompson.</p> <p>Peter Wills knows that the prisoner shipped on board the Holkar: he got Mr. Thompson to ship him; saw him on board when the brig sailed, and believes it was Sunday; was at the wharf when the brig sailed, saw prisoner and Oliver King on board ; remembers it; did not know Captain Brown.</p> <p>Cross-examined;—Lives in Leonard street, and lived at the **me *n Oatharine street; went up to Mr. Thompson and got three dollars; and he then went with him and prisoner to the brig. Is sure he is the man; has been acquainted with him ten years. He used to board with Henry Parsons. Witness goes to sea off and on ; arrived from France, August 29th last. About four or five weeks ago witness saw prisoner in Bancker street, knew him as soon as he saw him ; called him Tom Jones, and shook hands with him ; had heard of the Holkar being lost, said nothing to him about it, as soon as he saw him he remembered it. Saw King the same day, and next day heard he was taken up. Never had any quarrel with the man ; when he was living in the house with the prisoner he missed seven dollars, and thought hard of the prisoner, but had no quarrel about it. Witness was never taken up for any thing but assault and battery ; and buying a fiddle ; was acquitted; has been in Bride-well two or three times ; saw prisoner two or three days before he was taken and knew him; the prisoner first knew him; shook hands, called him Tom Jones, asked him where he came from, he answered from the southward.</p> <p>Julia Freeman.—Had known the prisoner five or six years ago. Three or four weeks ago, Jones called on her and asked her if she did not recollect him, as having staid with her sister. He called himself Thomas Jones. Her sister’s name is Mary Adams, who lived in Bancker street. He has not staid with her sister since his return.</p> <p>Cross-examined.—She knew nothing of the Holkar. At first, she did not recollect the prisoner, he has altered so much; but she knew him very well when he lived at her sister’s.</p> <p>Conklin, called again.—Was present at the police when the prisoner was asked if he knew the woman called Diana. He answered yes—said he boarded at Mrs. Parson’s, in James’ st., with her.</p> <p>JDiana was called again, and stated that she boarded with the prisoner at Henry Parson’s. *</p> <p>Oliver King, a mulatto man, and the principal witness, was next called. (Haines objected to the competency of the witness, on the ground that he had been in the State Prison. It appeared that he had been indicted for grand larceny, and convicted on the 7th of October, -1819, when he was sentenced to the State Prison for three years, and had served his time out. The counsel for the prosecution replied, and produced a pardon from the governor, dated the 9th of April 1824. (See the judge's charge.) The objection was overruled by the court, and the examination proceeded.)- Witness shipped on board the brig Hollcar, in 1818, commanded by Samuel Brown. He shipped with Alexander Oheevers (or Shivers,) Charles Moutiza, Patrick .Butler, (his right name was Harry Cook, called Cook or Doctor,) James Irving, John Eobinson, (the prisoner) .John Williams, (white man) and himself and mate. They were all coloured people except John Williams. Sailed on the morning of Sunday for Ouraeoa, where they arrived and discharged, and took in,a return cargo, and started for Hew York. At Ouraeoa, Shivers had a dispute with the Captain. Captain Humphries, a passenger, took charge of the vessel; the captain and mate being sick, the men refused to work under him, when they were put in prison, except Eobinson, Jones, and the cook, but Eobinson was afterwards taken up for stealing part of a barrel of beef from the vessel, and remained in prison till the brig sailed. The night before, Alexander Oheevers, and Charles and James ran away but were taken up and carried on board, the morning she sailed. John Williams was left at Ouraeoa, where he went in a Dutch man of war. Capt. Humphries came passenger in the brig, but used to do Captain’s duty sometimes. When they had been out seven or eight days, the captain sent them up to bend another topsail about dusk; John, James, Charles, Alexander, and witness. They had some dispute aloft, and being reproved, they made some answer which induced the captain to go down and load his pistols. James and Charles pretended to be sick, and went below and staid in their berths. The captain made tea and coffee, and sent to them from the cabin. Charles was sick at this time. Charles and James and witness were in the captain’s watch. The prisoner and Alexander Shivers were id the mate’s watch. The witness was in his berth and nearly asleep, when Alexander came down and asked Charles whether he was ready, Charles said “ yes. ” Witness asked what they were going to do 1 Charles answered none of your business. Eobinson said he was going to call the mate forward and tell him there was something wrong there. Charles then told witness that they were going to kill the captain, the mate and the passenger. Eobinson (the prisoner) went and called the mate forward. He came forward, and Charles and James jumped out of the forecastle; Charles and James with a crowbar, and James with a hand-spike. Witness then heard somebody strike, and heard the mate cry out “ Murder !” and stamp on the deck ; witness was below; when witness got upon deck, the mate was fallen. Witness cried out, “ For G-od’s sake, what are you doing!” Charles then answered, “ You son of a’bitch, if you say a word, I will knock your brains out.” Alexander took Ms (the mate’s) watch out of his pocket, and Charles, Alexander and James hove him overboard. They then went aft, and witness followed them. The prisoner said he would call captain Humphries up, for ho used to do captain’s duty. He went down, but captain H. would not get up. He then went down and told captain Brown the mate wanted him forward. Captain B. got up, and went forward as far as the windlass, when he started back, and all at once began to walk aft. Charles ran out from behind the camboose, and struck at him with a crowbar, which the captain caught in his hand, exclaiming, “ Charles is that you ?” Charles said “ Yes.” Alexander Oheevers now ran around the longboat and struck him twice on the head with a hatchet. James then took the handspike and struck him over the face: the prisoner then came with á harpoon, struck the captain in the left side. His head was lying towards the starboard. The Captain put his hand upon his breast, and then they picked him up and threw him overboard, and told witness to take the helm. At the time the mate was killed, the prisoner had the helm ; and while they were killing the captain, the witness had the helm, but part of the time left it to see the fray. This done, Charles said, let us go down now and kill that damned privateer son of a hitch Captain Humphries; upon which all wont down into the cabin, and told witness to keep the helm. Witness heard Capt. Humphries crying murder for some time; and then all four .came up from the cabin, bringing Captain Humphries with them, and laid him down ; and then hove him overboard. The cook .came up after they had thrown Captain Humphries overboard. They told him to go down and clear up the blood in the cabin; he went and got a bucket of water and did it. They said Captain Humphries was getting the captain's pistols out, when they struck at him, and broke one of thorn- in his hand. Alexander Shivers took charge of the brig. They then ran near Porto Rico, to the Mona Passage, and from thence to St. Domingo. Prisoner then bored holes in the brig to scuttle her, and they intended to go ashore in the boat. About two o'clock in the afternoon, a vessel was near them, and they were frightened, and took out the boat, and put aboard some provisions .and clothing, and they all got in, except the witness, who at first refused to go, until Charles took a pistol and threatened to shoot him if he did not. They went ashore about Jaequemel. After the murder, they found on board a box of gold, buckles, &c. : They also found 115 dollars, and a masonic apron, which was thrown overboard.</p> <p>Cross-examined.—Witness was horn in Orange county; his mother belonged to Bonj. Sears ; lived with his father at Staten Island until he was ten years old. This was his second voyage in the same vessel; never saw prisoner before. He went by the name of John Robinson ; never heard him called Jones ; came back in schooner, called the American, of Kennebeck— When they landed at St. Domingo, they went to Bennet, a town inhabited by blacks. Witness said nothing to any body about the murder, as he was afraid. They got one hundred and fifteen dollars, of which they gave witness 12 or 15. From Ben-net they went to Jaequemel, where he walked. Alexander went' up first, when they were all sent for by the pommandant, but did nob go then. Witness went on board the barque J&riepica, of Kennebeck, and went to the Havana ; said nothing of it to the captain, as he was afraid 'of being tried in Havana, Saw the mate of the George Washington, (whom he had seen at Curacoa) and told""him all about it; wanted fitness to go to Africa with them for slaves. Came from Havana in the sloop Flag of Truce to New Orleans, from thence to New York in the brig Dolphin. Had irons put on him while on board the brig G. Washington; does not know the name of the captain and mate ; he was brought.in irons to New Orleans, where he was put in jail. Mr. Orr assisted him, and he got him out of prison, with whom he then lived for some time. This was some time in April. Witness came in the brig= Dolphin, Captain Kent, as a hand, but he said nothing of this affair tp any body on board; arrived about the first of May,- 1819; does pot know how many days passage. Went to the police in two or three days after he arrived in New York, and told all the particulars. About the latter part of August was taken up for stealing. He then lived with his mother in William st.; did" not do much of any thing; worked at the steamboats, carrying wood. Did not steal at all after he came ashore ; confessed that he stole, before the police. Did not break' open the door of Dr. Drake’s house, and did not go up stairs in the house at all for the things.</p> <p>Oliver Stevens, Clerk of the Police, knows Oliver King ; he has been brought up at that office two or three times.</p> <p>jKing called again. Had "but one pistol in the boat; wag - at the time 18 or 19 years old. Captain Brown was a large stout man.</p> <p>Mary Adams—Knows the prisoner ; 5 years ago lived in ■ Bancker-st. at Mary Sales’; does not know whether he sailed in the brig Holkar; he went to sea about that time; don’t know Tessel; saw him in prison for the first time since his return ; he knew witness immediately.</p> <p>Cross-examined.—Never told witness that he was going to sail in the Holkar; never heard him called Robinson, but Tom Jones.</p> <p>The counsel for the prosecution here rested the case; and the Court directed a recess for an hour, that the jury might obtain some refreshments. At a few minutes before 5 o’clock the Court re-assembled, and the defence was opened by Mr. Haines.</p> <p>EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER.</p> <p>John Edwards knows the prisoner. He sailed in the brig Commodore Porter, Captain Doane, in 1818, to bring timber from St. Mary’s., Witness knew him in Baltimore, more than fifteen years ago—saw him when he came home in the Maria, since 1818, whence he shipped immediately in a vessel lying at Pine-street. He was always called Tom Jones; shipped him by that name about 18 months since. His character is very good, as given by Capt. Downesl Has heard lately that he was on board the Holkar. The first voyage was about three months. Witness went four voyages to St. Mary’s. The prisoner went the 1st and 2d voyage, the third voyage he returned a little before Christmas ; knows Oliver King; witness stood his bail twice, and his girl’s; don’t know his character as to truth and veracity; he has the character of a thief. Witness never heard- any thing against Diana Valentine, nor against Peter Willis,</p> <p>EVIDENCE FOR THE PEOPLE.</p> <p>Oliver Séevens again.—Has seen King often; thinks he would speak the truth, and would believe him under oath.</p> <p>John Edwards again. Saw King the next day after the prisoner was taken up; went up to see him; asked what Tom had been doing; he would not tell; saw him again in the evening, when he told witness ; did -npt tell King that if he was in his (King’s) place he would not have him taken up.</p> <p>Azel Concklin called again. The character of the last witness does not stand very fair ; from the knowledge he (witness) has, he should not be willing to place confidence in him, where he was prejudiced either way. Witness has known Oliver King four years, and would put twice the confidence in him that he would in the last witness.</p> <p>James Hopson, (Police Justice.)—The examination of Oliver King, of the 3d of June, 1819, was read. Witness said King came voluntarily, and underwent this examination ; never saw him before he made this deposition, nor since, till he came and gave information that prisoner was in town; he never had reference, nor had any other person, to this examination, as it was filed in the police office. (We have compared the examination with the testimony, and it agrees exactly.)</p> <p>Jarvis Lockwood.—Knows Diana Valentine ; she lived in his family ; knew her in 1810 to 12 ; 14 or 15 years ; her character is good for truth and veracity, has seen her six or seven times since she was married; keeps a very decent sailor boarding house,</p> <p>Zébulon Homans, (a marshal) does not know much of John Edwards; he is an immortal man. Diana Valentine’s character is good every way; has known her for four years ; was a regular woman in going to church; never saw any thing improper in her house. She sustained a very good character among her white neighbors. Oliver King’s general .character is not very good.</p> <p>Julia Willis, knows the prisoner at the bar ; the 2d year after the peace lived at Henry Parsons; her husband shipped him ; found him a pretty steady, clever man. Her husband shipped him the year after the- peace.' Witness knows King’s family; he is not as clever as he might be ; has been a bad boy from his childhood up ; when he went to school he used to pick up things not his own.</p> <p>The case was summed up by Messrs. Haines and Van Wyck, for the prisoner, and by Mr. Tillotson, for the United States:</p>

<p>Libel.</p> <p>Truth is no justification (in Virginia) of a libel, and cannot be given in evidence on an indictment forinformation: but there are two exceptions to this rule of Jaw. The people have a right to be informed oftheir public agents; therefore, against officers and candidates for public ofljce,truth is a justification, and may pc given in evidence.</p> <p>In no case is it necessary or proper that the defendant against whom there is an indictment • or information for a libel should plead the truth.</p> <p>In all cases the truth may .be given in evidence in mitigation of the fine. See the excellent ja¿M°Thach t¡JaaaI mjssibiiiiy 0f truth in evidence, &c., ante, p. 437.</p>

<p>Murder.</p> <p>by saying “ if ten aii you know about ttlG ]}US1116SS you win be Put m tlie dark room and banged,” dence.</p>

The prisoner was indicted at the Winchester District Court, April, 1796, for the murder of Frederick Becktoll.

<p>Malicious Stabbing.</p> <p>Jury—akcrimfnal^ca™ es- See ante, Yoi. 13 p.474.</p> <p>wheretheyiry may be dlschaiged.</p>

<p>Treason.</p> <p>It is the duty 0f the Court to declare what the law is'to requested^either 1116 prosecutor of the prisoner,. ”1 any staS® oi tne case | but the jury are notbound by their direct</p> <p>up prisoners to the enemjq is adheringio them aid and comfort, and is treas ?n against the ir. States.- Nothlngwiilexcuse the act but a Jaronife^</p> <p>When the act treason,S it in-solves the intention.,</p>

<p>Murder.</p> <p>reserving a jurisdiction, in executing process within, for offenA grant of land by a state to the TJnited States, ces committed without such tract, tlie United States have a sole and exclusive jurisdiction of crimes committed within the tract.</p> <p>The object of such a reservation is to prevent the place from becoming an asylum for fugitives from justice.</p> <p>When the fact of killing is proved, the law presumes it to be founded in malice. All circumstances of justification, excuse or mitigation, are to be proved by the prisoner, lest they arise out of the evidence produced against him.</p> <p>Where a crime in itself capital, is endeavoured to be committed, with force, it is lawful to repel that force by the death of the party making such attempt. The law will not suffer, with impunity, any crime to be prevented by death, unless the same, if committed, would also be punished by death. Homicide in resisting an arrest, substantially illegal, will, at most, amount only to manslaughter.</p> <p>Homicide excusable and justifiable. (See page 4i>7.)</p> <p>A soldier who has enlisted in, and served out Ms time in the marine corps, but who is refused his discharge, nevertheless, while he remains in the barracks, is subject to the rules of the establishment, and cannot violate them, except as to any act or exertion, the direct object of which should be to depart from the place.</p> <p>And if engaged in a brawl or quarrel with others, he may be restrained by force, and put under confinement by the officers: and if the officers advancing to him for the purpose of arrest, he fires off a gun, whit h he had previously in his hand, and which he had loaded, declaring he would kill any person that approached him, and kills a person, it is murder. Even had the gun went off by accident, it would have been manslaughter—the act being unlawful.</p>

The prisoners were tried on two indictments for larceny —one for stealing a silver watch and $2 50 in money, from Simon Glines; the other for stealing a surtout coat and $2 50 in silver change, from Joseph Whittier.

<p>Obstructing the Mail; &c.</p> <p>The right of an innkeeper horse for'his food does not horses owned by individuals, and em - ployed in the onhe’maih “ Nor to horses owned by the — United States ?nderaPloyed in that service No lien can exist against the govern-men.t A mai! sue or retain the mail for his hire. He must apply,to government, and if they refuse,the proper course is to petition congress. A stolen horse carrying the mail stage cannot be seized by the owner, so as to retard the mail. Nor can the mail be obstructed by arresting the driver for debt.*</p>

This was an indictment for keeping a disorderly house and tavern. It appeared the prisoner and one Allen kept the tavern in partnership; had a sign, with their joint names over the door, and that they dissolved partnership-in May, 1823; that previous to the dissolution, playing with cards and dice had been allowed in the tavern, and dances had been held there until a late hour.at night.

<p>This was a habeas corpus to Commodore Bainbridge, to bring up the body of Robert Treadwell, an infant of the age of twenty years and about eleven months. By the return of the habeas corpus, and the other proceed-in gS, it appeared that he was born at Ipswich, on the 2d day of August, A. D. 1795: that in the month of May, 1815, he enlisted into the navy of the United-States, to serve two years; that soon after his enlistment he deserted from the service, and having been apprehended, was, on the 19th day of June, last past, brought to trial on the charge of desertion, before a regular court martial, ° ’ ° - ’ and having pleaded guilty to the charge, was, by the sentence of the court, among other things, ordered to serve in the navy of the United States, the term of two .years from th% said nineteenth day of June, and to forfeit all the wages then due to him. He has a father who is still ,. . , , , , . living, and now absent at sea; and previous to his departure sued out a habeas corpus for the liberation of his son; but it failed, from the return of the officer to whom it whom it was directed, that the infant was not in his cusjt was alleged in the affidavits and petition that the enlistment was without the consent of his father.</p> <p>The cause was argued by Simmons, in behalf of the , petitioner, and Aylwin in behalf of Commodore Bainbridge.</p>

<p>Habeas Copus.</p> <p>A party charged with the publication of a libel may be bound in a recognizance for his appearance, ■ &c., but not for his good behavior. There may be cases, however, in which it may be necessary to insist upon surety for good behavior; but as a general rule, it should not be demanded before conviction.</p> <p>The words in the stat. 34 Edw. 3., “persons not of good fame,” do not seem to include persons charged with tire publication of libels.</p> <p>The inconveniences that would follow demanding surety for good behavior before conviction.</p> <p>Difference between recognizance to keep the peace and surety for good behaviour.</p>

<p>■o- ^ Habeas Corpus</p> <p>Construction congress, in relation to the arrest of an enlivenedsol¿ier m the S. army, March I6th, 1812</p>

<p>The leading facts proved on the part of the prosecution, were the following:</p> <p>The schooner Romp, armed with six eighteen pound carrouades, sailed from Baltimore early in April last, ostensibly on a commercial voyage for Buenos Ayres. She took with her an American register, and was, in all respects, documented as an American vessel. About 12 days after leaving the capes of Virginia, her crew were mustered, when they were informed of the destination of the vessel against the commerce of Spain. A salute was fired; the colours of Buenos Ayres hoisted : the name of the vessel changed from the Romp to the Santafecino, and articles under the government of Buenos Ayres signed by the crew.</p> <p>There was some disagreement between the witnesses as to the manner in which the crew received the intelligence of this change in the national character of the vessel, some affirming that the colours of Buenos Ayres were saluted with cheers, and affirming that they were saluted with murmurs.</p> <p>The Santafecino, however, proceeded on her cruise, and in the course of it, captured five Spanish vessels, out of which they took every thing valuable, sent two of them t0 Buenos Ayres for condemnation, and gave up the rest to the prisoners. Near an hundred vessels, American, Portuguese, Dutch, English, and others, which were neutral between Buenos Ayres and Spain, were spoken during the cruise ; all of which were treated politely. The general conduct of the Santafecino, appeared to be that of a regular commissioned vessel, her prisoners being treated humanely, and their private property restored to them, and perfect respect always paid to the vessels of neutral nations. Some of the witnesses, who were of the crew of the Santafecino, farther proved that the crew were dissatisfied with the colours under which they sailed, and that the revolt among them was in consequence of this dissatisfaction.</p> <p>1 The only evidence offered on the part of the prisoner was a paper, purporting to be a commission to the Santafecino, and a commission to the prisoner, as sailing master on board of her, from the government of Buenos Ayres. The district attorney objected to their going to the jury, because,</p> <p>1st. There was no evidence of their being genuine papers, as there was no proof that Buenos Ayres was an independent government, nor that the seals attached to these commissions was the seal of Buenos Ayres.</p> <p>2d. If the commissions were genuine papers, they obviously did not belong to this vessel, for they bore date in November, 1815, and the name of Santafecino was not borne by this vessel until the April following.</p> <p>These points Mr. Wirt pressed with his usual eloquence and visor.</p> <p>Mr. Usphur, for the prisoner, contended, that the papers ought to go to the jury, as evidence to be allowed, whatever weight they should be entitled to. He contended that the question, whether Buenos Ayres was independent or not, was for the executive to decide, and not the judiciary. That a late correspondence between Don Onis, the Spanish minister, and the American secretary of state, proved that the people of Buenos Ayres were in\ state of revolutiou, exerting themselves to throw off the yoke of Spain. That there was an exact and perfect analogy between that contest and the revolutionary contest of our country. That by the treaty of 1783, by numerous decisions of our courts, recognizing the validity of laws passed during the revolution, and by express decisions on the point, the principle was settled that our existence as an independent nation commenced with our declaration of independence in 1776, and not with the definite treaty of peace in 1783. That by parity of reasoning, the independence of Buenos Ayres commenced with their declaration of independence, and as that declaration was matter of notoriety throughout the world, and was more porticularly proved by the correspondence between Don Onis and Mr. Monroe, we were bound to consider them an independent people. That the seal of an independent people proved itself, and was not the subject of proof by any other sort of evidence. That it was, in its nature the highest species of evidence, because no nation could delegate to subordinate agents a greater power or authority than it possessed itself. That this principle was fully recognized in the supreme court; and it was indeed an offspring of the comity of nations, which all civilized nations acknowledged. That of course the seal attached. to the commissions, in the present instance, proved itself—proved the genuineness and object of the commissions, and that it was incompetent to the prosecution to call for any other evidence as to these points. This 1 J L argument, Mr. Upshur considered applied to both points made by the district attorney, but even if it did not, that there was nothing in the second point, because these commissions were executed and dated in Buenos Ayres,. in blank, and were left to "be filled up by the agent of that government in this country. That this was a satisfactory mode of accounting for the difference of time between the date of the commission and the adoption of the name of the Santafecina, and that there could be no reason to believe that the commissions had ever been used on board of any other vessel.</p>

<p>Assault and Battery.</p> <p>land, notwithstandingit has been ceded to ntiudtMand1 ingithasbeen declared in the act of session (Feb. 15th, isuíh R"i L" “ shall6 hereafter be subject to the jurisdiction of the The General Sessions have jurisdiction over offences committed on Governor’s Is-</p> <p>clud^the jurisdiction of the Sessions, must show that the place was purchased by the United States; being subject to their jurisdiction, is not sufficient. It must appear by some act, on the part of the government, that they intend to exercise exclusive jurisdiction.</p> <p>Some powers of the general government are from their nature exclusive; there are other powers where congress has a right to exclude the state authority, but until they o so the jurisdiction of the state is not taken away.</p>

Information filed by J. C. Wright, collector of the revenue for the 6lh collection district of Ohio, against Alexander Campbell, for selling domestic distilled spirits without a license therefor from the collector,- contrary to the act of congress in such case made and provided, and praying “ that the said Alexander Campbell may forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of 150 dollars penalty, and also the farther sum of 15 dollars duty, by law imposed by a license to…

<p>Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>The act of granting a warrant of laai an¿ not a judicial act.</p> <p>The judicial P°Yei\, °f tlie the^st section and 3d article of the constitution, in criminal cases, _ is not exclusive of o/the'states7 congress has a right to constitute any citizen of the Umted States of°tito^ace, although conservators of the state. The 33d section of theactofSeptember 34, 1789, is constitutional.</p>

<p>Motion to be discharged UNDER A "WRIT OF HABEAS Corpus.</p> <p>Construction congressi795 in relation to courtmartiais.</p>

<p>Misdemeanor.</p> <p>Discretion of the court to award process Upon motions.</p> <p>The33dsec of the act Of September 24. 1789, which eTaToffiee'rs a state with power to arrest, &,c. for criminal of-fences against the United States der clared constitutional.</p> <p>A warrant of arrest not returnable at any time, or before any person, is void.</p> <p>A prisoner lias a right to be confronted with the witness against him, in all stages of the accusation : the privilege i§ inherent, and the right to demand tile enjoyment of proving hisinnocence simultaneouswitli the first step of the prose; cution.</p> <p>Arguments uab inconvenienti, 578, 579.</p> <p>Arguments in favour of state rights. 580, 581, 582.</p>

The prisoner was charged in an indictment in the fol- Jurisdiction lowing words, that “he the said John Feely, with force ofstatecourts, and arms, feloniously did steal, .take, and carry away out Of the mail of the United States, three packages, containing articles of value; one directed to Philadelphia, one to Pennsylvania, and one northward ; which packages had been delivered to Gardner I. Grant, (who was mail carrier,) to carry them from Wythe court house, to Montgomery…

<p>Murder.</p> <p>The prison-field wfth his reapers, was informed (3 that°Ck’cam ^ bell’s reapers in an adjoinino. . ha¿ se°lt a 'chal_ lenge to his. He went out llis ?wn Campbell’s110 and used threa tening language, but fin-ally all parties be^econciled0 Before he left the field a dispute again ^°°jc place, fen^etTcamnl bell’s men to fight them man for man; wlllch was ^j®^® ’ the parties appreached each other, he aw0l’e lf he manthatday^ jie wou¡¿ ¡e¡ out his guts, and that he would fight Abraham Van Horn, one of Campbell’s men, (who was present,) the next morning for ten dollars, telling one of his men to get a club, and he would taKe his knife, and they would clear their way through the whole of Campbell's men. Each party for the present desisted.</p> <p>Between sun-down and dark, Abraham Van Horn, with others, was passing through the prisoner’s field, to confirm the bet, singing and making a noise. He ordered them out, and said he would blow them through; and they went out. He called for his gun, which was refused, and then for his knife, and pursued them to the fence; and there exclaimed to Abraham Van Horn, you have used me ill, and I’ll be damned if I don’t have satisfaction. After some intemperate words between him and Van Horn, Van Horn took off his shirt, and they attempted to get at each other through the fence. The prisoner struck Merchant, one of Campbell’s men, who struck back, and the prisoner and Van Horn clinched, and the prisoner was thrown. Presently Van Horn exclaimed, enough; that his guts were cut out. The wounds were mortal, and Van Horn died.— Held murder.</p> <p>gee antg TOi. i,</p>

<p>Libel.</p> <p>For the law in relation to libels see Buckingham’s case, ante p. 428. and vol. 1. p. 354. It is not the province of the jury, (notwithstanding they are judges of the law and fact) to decide what is proper evidence $ it is the privilege of the court.</p>

<p>The 4th art. sec. 2. of the constitution upon18 P°congress, and the law of congress in pursuance ofitin gitiveT t0 is constitutional, and is ex-elusive of state laws as they Embrace8 "</p>

<p>Decree.</p> <p>?°urts ex" diction8of internatkmal law, may deduce jhe feet °f nati°nalln" history ana an expiicit official recognition is not necessary</p>

Questions of salvage are always questions of the most disagreeable kind. In vain the mind looks for relief, in its anxiety to do justice, by seeking the aid of fixed rules and principles. Such questions are addressed exclusively to discretion, and that discretion must move in a range to which there are no defined limits. This is attended with another embarrassing circumstance.

<p>Libel.</p> <p>Construction of the act entitled an act concerning navigation, passed April, 18th, 1818.</p> <p>Libel for same cause, <fcc.</p>

This case was adjourned to the last June term, and continued over for consideration to the November term. At that term, it was argued by the attorney of the United States, for the district of Virginia, before the court, consisting of Judges White, Carrington, Stuart, Holmes, Brockenbrough, Allen, Semple, Randolph and Daniel; and at a subsequent day of the same term, Judge White delivered the opinion of the court, as nearly as can now be recollected, to the following effect.

<p>Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>To claim a had“absented himself from the ship for two nights, by an iron chain aec^foi^the purpose of preventinghis escape is not contrai-yto sJf‘e^c maritime law, nor to the act of congress July s0,1790-</p>

<p>Conspiracy.</p> <p>An indictmentcharging a conspiracy by cheating and defrauding a person of his money, need not state the means by which theconspiracy was effected.</p>

On the part of the traverser, it was contended, that the legislature, in the second section of the above act, in the following words, “ that every company or association that shall lend money, and shall issue by their officer- or officers, or by any person or persons, bonds, notes, or bills payable to bearer, or payable to order, and endorsed in blank, or use other shift or ■ device, whereby the bonds, notes, or bills, given by such company or association, or on their…