New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-03-24
THE INDICTED ALDERMEN.


judge BEBEE and AID. TIENAs and CORNELL.
The People W. Jas NJ Bard
The Court met at II o'clock. Judge Beebe
rendered his decision in relation TO the above motion,
of which the following ia a verbatim report:
This matter arises a motion TO quash the indct-
ment for informally, and the Court s relieved from all
embarrassment the subject whether the matter set
up In the indictment Is an oense At law By the frank
admission of the learned counsel who argued the mo-
ton for the defendant that if the indictment suf
fcient information the oense charged would be ground
for indictment at common law. The Court IL also
eved from all consideration 10 whether the matter
charged ofense under the Statutes, By the state
Of the District Attorney that there's no law upon
our Statute books which constitutes the ofense charged
a crime and that IL criminal at ALL IL must be at Com
mon Law. The question. therefore, resolves itself
wholly into the consideration whether the indictment
is sufficient information PIT the defendant upon his
trial.
Whether Court will quash an indictment upon mo-
ton Is a question purely Of discretion question
certainly to be exercised within legal rules, but not
within the same rule as would govern the Court in its
decision upon demurrer upon motion In arrest Of
judgment after verdict and have taken occasion
to express what said upon the argument that regret
that IL the efficiency Of the indictment was to be
| Court on demurrer, and sm not prepared to say
that had the question up that shape the conclu
sion at which have arrived would have been the
same.
| The familiar rule seems TO be that the Court will
not qussh an indictment upon motion except in very
clear case and the English Courts have carried the
rule far refuse quash in several classes Of
cases, and among others, similar to the one
der consideration. Second edition Wheaton page ia,
and the cases there cited.
Acting upon this familiar rule is the indictment
clearly bad that the Court will not put the defendant
upon his trial
And the first objection taken to the Indictment Is that
the indictment describes the defendant Alderman
Of the City of NewYork and under the color of that
Office consulting the oense in question and that mas
much he includes within himselfhree fold powers to
wit Legislative executive and judicial the indictment
should state In what capacity he acting while
hitting the ofense. This objection would have
weight 1t required action in either capacity other
than "wickedly and frsudulently extortng money
fee compensation" in violation of his duty
stifute the ofensc in either capacity IL would he
| crime for him corruptiy 10 extou money definite
description would seem TO be unnecessary. But
further TO the objection would be, that when
acting Judge be Is 80 called, when as Supervi-
cor he is so called, and so equally when acting in
his legislative capacity Alderman; but 10 give the
strongest expression against the form OF the descrp
ton the Court could feel itself justified in giving
1t il not question free from doubt and the Court
not, therefore, quash the indictment upon that point
The next point raised by the defendant is that the
act which the defendant to perform is not stated
with sufficient clearness to enable the deendent to
prepare undersandngly for his defense If this be So
the indictment should most certainly be quashed for
his trial unless the indictment is framed that he
clearly understand what he stands charged with.
The indictment reads: "Yet the said Jas NJ Bard,
regarding bis said duty the day and year afore.
said rauduenty and mslicicusy and In violation Of
his said duty and under color Of bic said office extort
ed received and took of and from one Thos P stan-
ton, the amount and sum Of $500 and for fee and
consideration for the performance Of certain act In
his said capacity said Alderman connected with the
leasing OF certain pier at the foot Of WAst In said
City, CHE property of the Corporation OF the City and
County of New York, whereby the said Jas. NJ Bard
wilully and oonuptly violated his duty said Alder.
man, and was guilty Of fraud in his said off O."
Now, what Ia the ofense charged by the iHictmensi
II be the performance of certain act In regard TO
said pier then of the opinion tia, the Indictment
is no, sufficiently explicit; but tina, certain act Is
a incident. and no, the principal ofsnsc, then
that defect may no, exist
Did the defendant do any act in regard the leasing
of saia pier which not legs and correct think
such charge is made by the Indictment but being an
Alderman Of the City Of New York and entitled to no
fee consideration for any &C, in regard to leasing
said pier he wickedly mAlieiously by color OF his
Office received $500, whereby he was guilty of fraud
and corruption In office. Then the oHense was not
what be to do. but 1t couup;ly receiving $500
from Thos. P. stanioR by color Of his Office. This
oaense is Clearly specified. the amour, he received,
from, whom he received it, acd by wha, color wha, he
to do Then the certain act" is the mere Incl
dent 10 The oaense and such specific detail Is neces-
sAry.
Perhaps fsirer test be had Of It's suficlency
than comparing with weIlesisblshed preceden, in
an analogous case, and have chosen one which May
be found in wheatons Preceden,s. page So against
Justice of the Peace for proceeding to the duties of
his Office in state Of intoxicaiion, as an example
Now in this Indictment the osense was ntoxicAtion
while in the discharge Of his dusies As a Mazs.rate
and what particular act he performed il deemed
necessary By the plesder 10 state The auson 10 the
discharge o: duties is general No particular trial Is
stated particular minutes are referred to- sle-
CATION that he did not discharge his ocsl duties with
ability and integrity, but il the example the scaa-
DIAL the d-grsce into which bis conduct was bringing
the administration Of justice that made the crime OF
the intoxieston the ofense
80 In the pressr. Indictment the to performed
she defendant he have consulted BY his action
tne pest interests ohe City and thereoreno oepse but
Awas me wrong, the example Of public o.seisl en-
u,eu oy Jaw 70 no fee or consideration exrortns b.
eoior Oh o's once sum OF money. Now Is not this
odese stated with sufficient cearuess to epshle the a.
fsndsnh TO prepare for his trial strikes the mind of
the Court that II 90 statedi
Another ponttak by the counsel for the ass.,.,,
Is that the Indictment Is sufficiently expc;,
character Of the oerse and TIA, he Ia ief, h, doh,
to whether be is to defend for exsorsoa bribav or
ment corruption
The indictments fora misdemesnor where no p.r,;.