The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-16
Motion to Quash the Indictment against Al
derman Bard.


COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS.
Before Judge Beebe and Aldermen Temann and Cornell
MARCH 15.Ths being the day appointed for argument
upon the motions TO quash the indictments found against
the Aldermen for malfeasance counsel for Alderman
Bard appeared in support Alderman Wesley Smith with
drew his notice intending to demand trial.
The Indictment, counsel said, one for extortion.
for definition of which he referred 70 the People Va.
Whaley, Governs Reports, 66l G63 and by its concu.
sion-sppeaIed to have been framed at common lay.
All the legislation on the subject OF public officers
their fees, delnquencies &c.-was TO be found r. s.,
ESQ, sections and g. and page $780, section IS. A in.
terpretsve Of these he referred the People Bedel
HILL 1885, and the Supervisors Of Ononlagua vs. Brigsr
2 DEMO, 90, AZ.
The first inquiry lie would make was is the offence
leced and charged the correct oneasuming the facts
stated in the Indictment TO be trueor should not the
Secondly Neither exorton nor bribery being Of
fences by statute in State they be entertained
by our courts as offences NJ common law
Thirdly If A,e indictment IL maintanabe at all, what
general rule regulates the suihciency Of II plead.
mgr How should its allegations be- madey
Fourthly. Does this indictment meet the exactons Of
the rules or pleading and the rIecedentsY
Filthy Was the Indictment found upon legal testi-
monyf
Upon all these points, except the second, counsel
argued at considerable length chiefly dwelling upon the
mcnt was not specifically avsrred as IL ought to
have beeno enable the defendant to the charge
The District Attorney On. b. Blunt, Esq. opposed
the motion he had been called upon in his duty to en-
que whether thore any offence in tho facts submit
ted Dy the Grand jury, and he doubted whether il
extorton bribery, at common statute law and the
indictment for neither but for malfeasapce in office
in receiving moneyso the genilemana remarks to
tortion did not apply. Tho indictment either under
the city charter at common law The words "contra
TO the satutc bad been Intentionally erased under
the statute 0 deofnls their omission would not be fatal
whereas II IL was hold to be offence of law
only their introduction might he. The learned
then referred to section 1q Of the city charter of ls48,
taking the ground that lease cont ract within the
meaning OF that section and the words wilfuy and
ruptly the important ones in the Indictment By
the 10Th fcOn certain breaches Of the charter de-
carod nisdem6anors, though he not sure this
would apply but hc contended IL perfect and tho
ugh Indictment at common law.
q voting leasing that pier might be legal but that in
receiving money Tor the act he was guilty OF wrong
for Which be vas lableY
Mr Blrnt replied Yes sir that Is the whole case II
T. not bribery; IL il not extorton: II Is simply msbe
hnyiour a public officer in receiving money Il the
act were Illegal he might have been indicted otherwise
Judge Beebe said he would have been better satisfied
IL II had been brought up as demurrer, a. he was
generally 10 hing indictments but he would
pretend to say what his views might be after full
Iteration.
After a few remarks from defendants counsel the
Cour reserved their decision and proceeded to take up
the prison calendar