Volume 4 — Parker's Criminal Reports

This case came before the General Term on a certiorari directed to Mr. Justice Peabody, for the purpose of reviewing proceedings had before him on a writ of habeas corpus. The writ of. certiorari was allowed upon the following affidavit: New York Supreme Court. In the matter of The People of the State of New York vs. John McCormack.

The defendant was indicted under the 1st section of the act, chap. 109, of Laws of 1854, entitled “An act for the protection of Gas Light Companies,” which enacts “ that any person who, with intent to injure or defraud any gas company, body corporate or individual, shall make, or cause to be made, any pipe, tube or other instrument or contrivance, or connect the same, or cause it to be connected, with any main service pipe, or .other pipe, for conducting or supplying…

The defendant was indicted for a misdemeanor in selling spirituous liquors without license, in violation of the act of April 16, 1857.

The prisoner was tried on an indictment for the murder of Aaron Cole. The defence was, that the homicide was justifiable. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the charge of the judge to present the questions of law decided.

This was an action on a recognizance. The complaint was as follows: Supreme Court, Montgomery County. Held: and which was held, in and for the said county of Montgomery, on the 18th day of November last past, and which order was duly entered upon the records of said court, but the said Benjamin wholly neglected to surrender the said Nathan, at and within the time specified in said order, though said court was duly held and passed, still…

The defendant was indicted in the Court of Sessions of Seneca county, for obtaining the indorsement, by false pretences, of Deming Boardman to a note.

This case came before the general term on a writ of error to the Monroe Oyer and Terminer, in which court the prisoner, together with Sarah Littles, his sister, had been indicted for the murder of Charles W. Littles.

This was an application made at chambers to the Hon. Theron R Strong, one of the justices of the Supreme Court, for the allowance of a writ of error with stay of proceedings. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion deciding the application.

<p>Giving a lease of real estate belonging to the corporation of the city of New York, for a longer period, than ten years, or without having complied with the provisions of the 41st section of the amendment to the charter of the city of New York, passed in 1851 {ch. 446), is the violation of such charter within the meaning of the 40 th section of said act, and punishable as a misdemeanor.</p> <p>The mayor, aldermen and councilmen of the city of New York, are officers of the city government within the meaning of the said 40th section, and, as such, are liable to indictment for willfully doing the acts forbidden by that section, and which are therein declared to be misdemeanors.</p> <p>A conspiracy by such officers to give a lease in violation of the provisions of such charter, is a misdemeanor; but it is not a misdemeanor, under the said 40th Section, for such officers to vote for and pass a resolution directing the comptroller of the city to lease real estate of the corporation fbr a longer term than ten years, such voting of itself not being an unlawful act, and the statute providing that no aldermen or councilmen shall be questioned in any other place for any speech or vote in either board.</p> <p>Where a count in an indictment against the mayor, aldermen and councilmen of the city of New York, charged that the defendants “ did violate and evade the provisions” of said amended charter, “by voting for and passing a resolution in due form, directing the comptroller to lease ” certain real estate of the corporation to the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum for more than ten years, the count was adjudged bad as not charging any offence under the statute.</p>

This case came up on certiorari to the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the city and county of New York, where the prisoner had been found guilty by the verdict of a jury. The facts in the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a motion to quash, an indictment, on the ground fully set forth in the opinion of the court. x Point I. This being an indictment for a statutory offence, it should contain specific averments of every fact necessary to bring the alleged offence within the statute. II. The statute under which this indictment was found was the amended charter of 1857, and it created a misdemeanor for four causes: 1. Evading or violating the charter; or, 2.

This case came before Mr. Justice Sutherland, on habeas corpus, at chambers.

The prisoner was tried, at the Delaware Oyer and Terminer, in August, 1858, for forging and uttering, as true, a note and contract, which were in the words and figures following, to wit: “ Kortright, April 17, 1855. “ Thirty days from date, for value received, I promise to pay James Blakeley, or bearer, one thousand dollars, with use. “WILLIAM BLAKELEY.” “Kortright, April 16,1855. “ I hereby acknowledge that the receipt given to me by my brother, James Blakeley, thirty-two…

The defendant was indicted in the Oyer and Terminer of Cortland county for a rape, and interposed two pleas of autrefois convict, to which pleas the District Attorney demurred.

The prisoner was convicted at the February term of the Otsego Court of Sessions, in 1859, of forgery in the second degree, to wit: for uttering as true, to one Newman, a certain counterfeit promissory note called a bank bill, which purported to have .been issued by “ The Westfield Bank,” a corporation duly formed under and by virtue of the laws of Massachusetts. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the State Prison at Auburn for the term of five years and two months.

The defendant had been convicted at the last September criminal term, Justice Houghton presiding, of keeping a disorderly house, and, upon affidavits including his own, applied for a new trial.

Demurrer to indictment. The indictment, was found at the Oyer and Terminer, held in and for the county of Erie, in- September, 1854, and was sent to the Superior Court of Buffalo for trial. The indictment was at common law for buying and receiving and storing gram for hire, by false weights, in the exercise of the defendant’s business as a warehouseman.

The indictment alleged that on the 16th day of November, 1853, the schooner Hope, of which the defendant was master, was wrecked and lost on Lake Erie; that one Samuel Watson, was owner of the schooner, and had before the time of the loss procured a policy of insurance to the amount of $600, to be executed for his benefit by the Atlas Mutual Insurance Company ; that the defendant, on the 21st day of November, at Buffalo, before Samuel T. Atwater, a notary public, swore, as…

Demurrer to plea of former acquittal. The prisoner had been indicted in this court, and charged, first, with having forged an instrument in writing not directed to any person, which instrument was in these words: “I have bought of Earnhardt Krummer two frocks for $7. Ask your employers for the money, and let him have it. “ Mbs. Williams.” And, secondly, with having uttered such forged instrument as true, with intent to defraud Samuel Williams. He was tried and acquitted.

The prisoner was arrested upon a charge of grand larceny, upon a magistrate’s warrant, and while standing committed for further examination, was indicted for the same crime at the Oyer and Terminer. On being arraigned in that court, he demanded a trial, and the indictment being sent to this court, he was tried and convicted two days after such arraignment. On a bill of exceptions he moved for a new trial. The grounds of the application are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

This was an appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Term overruling a demurrer to an indictment.

The prisoner was convicted at the October Criminal Tenü, 1856, of having procured, by false representations, one of the firm of F. Smith & Co. to put the signature of F. Smith & Go. to their promissory note, payable to the order of one George W. Baker, and to procure said Baker’s indorsement of the note, and to deliver it to the prisoner in exchange for certain bills purporting to be issued by the President, Directors and Company of the Potomac River Bank, dated at…

The prisoner was convicted of grand larceny at the November Criminal Term, 1856, Clinton, J., presiding. The larceny was of a mare belonging to one La Duke, who, according to his own testimony, was a French Canadian, having a very imperfect knowledge of the English language.

<p>The conducting of a house in such a way as to disturb and disquiet the neighbors, or the carrying on of its business so as to tend to the corruption of public morals, is punishable as a nuisance.</p> <p>It is no objection to an indictment for keeping a disorderly house, that it is charged in the same count that it is kept as a bawdy house, a tippling house, and a dancing house. It is not necessary, under such a count, to prove that all of such offences were committed, but the defendant should be convicted, ii it is shown that either was permitted in sucha manner and under such circumstances as to make the house disorderly and a nuisance.</p>

The prisoner was indicted under 2 Revised Statutes, 672, section 30, for having “ made and engraved aplate, in the form and similitude of a promissory note for five dollars,” issued by the Marine Bank, a bank incorporated by the State of Rhode Island, “ without the authority of said bank.” On behalf of the People, it was proved that the prisoner had procured an engraver to engrave on a steel plate, which had already engraved thereon vignettes at the side and top, the…

The indictment contained one count only, and charged the prisoner with larceny of “ one promissory note of the value of $100,” and of certain receipts, and of a tin box of the value of $2, “of the chattels and personal property of one Edwin W. Weston.” The note and receipts were set forth in haec verla.

The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged that, on the first day of January, 1854, the defendant, Williams, was the cashier, and the defendant, White, the president of a banking association, organized under the act “ to authorize the business of banking,” and known as and called the White’s Bank of Buffalo; “and that said White, being such president, and said Williams, being such cashier of said White’s Bank of Buffalo, as aforesaid, on the said first day…

<p>It is no ground, either for quashing an indictment or discharging the prisoner from arrest, that before the finding of the indictment, and after the issuing to the officer, by a police justice, of a warrant for his arrest, by an agreement between the officer and some person in Canada, the prisoner was forcibly brought from Canada to the line of this State, and there delivered to such officer, in arrest, under the warrant.</p>

<p>Cattle, stolen, in Wyoming county, were driven across the line into Erie county, and through different towns of the latter county into the city of Buffalo: Meld, that the Superior Court of Buffalo had jurisdiction for the trial of the offence.</p>

<p>Form of an indictment for murder by poisoning, against M. H., as principal, and W. R., as accessory before the fact, with counts at common law and under the statute.</p> <p>Circumstantial evidences of guilt on trial of an indictment for murder by poisoning</p> <p>Appearances of stomach and intestines, on post mortem examination, in case of poisoning, described, with opinions of scientific men on the subject.</p> <p>Charge of the presiding judge on.a trial at the Oyer and Terminer, in a case of alleged murder by poisoning.</p> <p>It is a reprehensible irregularity for a jury, after they have retired to deliberate on a trial for murder, to take the opinions of the constable in attendance, on the question whether the jury could bring in a verdict of manslaughter, and to send for the Revised Statutes and examine their provisions in relation to the crimes of murder and manslaughter.</p> <p>Such an irregularity is sufficient to vitiate a verdict of “ guilty,” unless it appears beyond all reasonable doubt that no injury has resulted from it to the prisoner.</p> <p>The evidence of jurors is not to be allowed for the purpose of impeaching or in any way impairing the effect of their verdict.</p> <p>It seems, there is no rule which prevents the constable, sworn to attend the jury, from being present in the jury room during the deliberations and discussions of the jury, though the practice is disapproved.</p>

Mart Hartung was convicted of the murder of her husband, Emil Hartung, at a Court of Oyer and Terminer, held before Mr. Justice Harris and his associates, in the city of Albany, in the month of February, 1859. William Eeimann, her alleged paramour, was indicted with her as an accessory before the fact.

On the 2d day of February, 1860, the defendant was convicted in this court of the murder of one John Leary. Held: that in consideration of the threat or banter of B., such killing may have been no more than voluntary manslaughter, and that it was error in the court below to charge that “if the first presenting of the gun was with malicious intent, notwithstanding what followed, the killing was murder.” (McGuffie v. State, 17 Geo., 497.) But,…

This was an indictment for grand larceny alleged to have been committed in stealing a dog. The defendant demurred. A stipulation between the parties, the substance of which is set forth in the opinion of the court, was submitted with the pleadings on the argument. The following opinion was given by

This case came before this court on a writ of error directed to the New York Oyer and Terminer; in return to which writ the clerk of such court returned the following record of conviction : wm… Held: in the audience room or lecture room where the Sabbath school was held. Q. I wish to know now, during the time you have known the Misses Bell, whether you have observed any improper conduct in and about the church between them and the prisoner, James Stephens ? A. I never have.

The defendant was brought to trial on an indictment charging him with the homicide of one Honeyman, in December, 1859, in the city of New York. The defendant possessed a good character for peace, quietness and integrity, while the deceased was proven to have been a man of abandoned character and addicted to ruffianly habits. The defendant and deceased met at a porter house, when the former charged the latter with having passed counterfeit money.

The defendant was brought to trial upon an indictment for petit larceny. after having opened the case, produced a witness who testified that Benjamin Weston, the complainant, was a non-resident at the time of the alleged commission of the offence; that he left this State immediately afterwards, and was now absent from the State.

On a return to a writ of habeas corpus, before Justice Bacon, it appeared that the prisoner, who was the Bev. Henry Budge, of Lewis county, was held under a warrant of commitment issued by Thomas Rogers, one of the coroners of Lewis county, under the following circumstances: On the eleventh day of December last, Mrs. Budge, the wife of the prisoner, was found dead in bed, with her throat cut, and a bloody razor lying by her side.

The prisoner was indicted for the crime of rape, at a Court of Sessions held in Hamilton county, in October, 1858. The indictment contained but a single count in the usual form. ■ At a subsequent term of said court, held in June, 1859, the prosecuting attorney moved that said indictment be sent to the Fulton county Oyer and Terminer for trial, or that the prisoner be tried for an assault only.

This case came up on a writ of error to the Court of Sessions of St. Lawrence county, where the plaintiff in error was arraigned upon an indictment in the following words: State of New York, County of St. Lawrence, ss: At a Court of Oyer and Terminer, held at the Court House, in the town of Canton, in and for the county of St. Lawrence, on the 15th day of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, before the Honorable Amaziah B. James,…

•This case came before the court on writ of error. Held: then and there willfully and feloniously, did shoot off and discharge, at and against him, the said Charles Sturgis, and at and against the right side of the chest of him, the said Charles Sturgis, giving unto the said Charles Sturgis, then and there with the leaden bullet aforesaid, so shot off and discharged as aforesaid, out of…

In these cases, indictments had been found against the defendants, in the county of Kings, for a public nuisance, and the indictments having been removed into the Supreme Court, the defendants moved, on affidavits, for a change of the place of trial. The facts and circumstances sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

This was a writ of error to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Albany county. The prisoner had been indicted for the murder of Patrick McCarty, and pleaded not guilty. He was tried before Mr. Justice Could and the justices of the Sessions, at a term of the Oyer and Terminer, commencing on the 15th of February, 1859.

This case came into this court on writ of error to the Court of Sessions of Yates county.