New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-01-28
.ne. ar Eblire sinds out that the tkiag vcnt
y eu'D" - 80. orr. He 6ndn thai Il isake out /

and stops their woIk, 20 a. W s"PPoit .n'o siO.s
minister 10 bis political purposes. Now what dd tnls
man do If you please when be found out that tue law
had been violated if you please Did ne make any
ottemrt TO make amends Not 10 the least extent.
Did BE- 20 10 the magistrate and complain Of Smith,
eeckel K Co. for attenI. 70 bride him. No attempt
at exposure made. On" says Ebiing TO smith,
that receipt from don't state the terms OF any
"coptyuet; that paper Is not worth anything. am
g. not afraid of that. Come with It, and Will
" break down your evidence" This the way
EbHng reasoned: "Smith dare not come out against
"rre He is az deep in the matter az en- csn
&" break down his evidence, let bim come on Win
"bi paper. 1t don't amount to sHything and hsre
made away with the contract; srd dead paper IKE
.'1esd men, can tell no tales" Now, ask yoa u thlS
Transaction viii admit Of any ether construction than
that Eblng knew il oppressive to the ciszcns OF
New-York 20 his own COINCIDENCE, and, be knew az
tho time against the law, which be had sworn TO fulfill
and carry out. trust you will have very little diff
culty in testing this by your own common sehse, with
out prejudice for against The prisoner.
Mr. Brady submitted TO the Court list OF the points
on which be desired bin to charge the Jury and Judge
Capron then proceeded to charge the Jury az follows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE jury: This GRIN lie upon which
Won are 10 pass il not Of the most serious that
person be charged with, for does not involve the
life Of the accused, but II IL crime involving that
which high-minded gentleman values next TO hs he
and sometimes above IT, his moral and social standing
his rotca interests. and biz personal liberty. make
these remarks that you may know the consequences
that viii be visited upon the defendant, you hnd him
guilty OF the charge OF DIlOery WINCH i
against him on this trial. You will ace the necessity,
therefore of ecruiinziDg the evidence closely, and OF
being satisfied Of the defendants guilt, beyond all rea-
sonebe doubt, before you find him guilty. lie Is a
gentleman who has always held good position in the
Conmup,y and should not be struck down by light or
trivial evidence. The defendant is indicted under the
statute declaring that any officer accepting any GIT,
advantage promise of advantage, IN consideration
of using his official influence fer the benefit of another
unlaw fuly, shall be, upon conviction, disqualified
from ever holding Office, DC. The Judge
here read the law upon bribery Under the ev-
denoe in this case IT Will be tor you TO say wheth-
er the defendant the 9th of January, 1855,
made bargain TO obtain contract from the city, for
which he was to receive Gcertan value in money, and
if you are convinced he did make this contract, he is
guilty of bribery and you should so find 1t ls not for
You to say how he could his influence. If you be-
heye he promised TO bis influence for eonsideT8
ton you need not inquire whether he was able TO use
il or not successfully. You need not trouble your
selves how he could use 1t. He is connected with the
City Government, and it il presumed that he knows
how TO use the influence which he promises. / think
il is out of the how these contracts might be OBJ
tanned carried out. The only question for you IS,
did this defendant contract make bargain that he
would grant the aid of his influence officially for a
tain sum of money! Now upon another point must
charge that ignorance of law is no excuse This excuse
may address itself to the Executive in plea for par
dom but is excuse before court OF justice upon
a trial for penal offense. have had men before Inc
who have been tried and convicted who have not been
two weeks upon shores, yet no one thought of set
though this defense would have been true in fact,
though not legal defense. This statute under which
be indicted is two years DID, and the defendant is
presumed to have known of 1t. His ignorance
of the law is no excuse whatever, and you cannot
consider it as in any way an excuse for the de-
feLse. Now, gentlemen, l will charge you upon
the evidence of an accomplish An accom-
pice may tell the truth, but jury should
never convict upon the testimony of an accompice
ONLY without any confederation. Let US look at the
evidence and see if Smith is corroborated. If you
find he is coroborated in material and substantial
PARTS of bis statements ard you believe it., the de-
fendant is guilty. Smith says he on here from
Philadelphia; be saw the defendant; they had, at de-
fendants request, private interview; contract was
drawn subsequently up, receipt was gwen, and
the parties bound themselves to a certain agreement.
Where il that contract If tits contract not lille
GAL why has not the defeuse produced it, 1t was in
ounbont upon them 10 produoo 1T, end thoy would
have set the whole matter at rest Yet the defense
have not lit TO produce this contract, although
il is proved that il was delivered to the defendant;
and why they have not done 80 is question for you
to determine. We have had Mr. Mott upon the stand
who is also acComplce, and far his testimony
goes cannot that il conflicts with the testimony
of Mr.. Smith, except as to the party from whom the
corrupt proposition proceeded; but this is quite nna-
terial if the defendant entertained the proffer of
the bribe. This witness called by the
defendant. Gentlemen, l am requested to
charge you upon some points of law which
have been handed to me. L am requested to
charge that unless the motive was corrupt the act
was not an offence within the meaning of the statute
Upon this point charge that if the act was unlawful
il was, in Judgment of law, intentional and corrupt
The question then is did he do the act If he did, the
intention TO violate the statute is sufficiently proved
but if substantive proof on this point necessary
you may look at the defendants request that their
conference should be private, because it was viola
ton Of law, and the law he is presumed to be ac-
quanted with. am asked again 10 charge you that
this does not within the bribery statute Of 1852
/ charge that il within this statute. The law
abhors bribery, and is very jealous of its officers.
cannot the force of the idea that il is matter to
how the defendant should his influence whether
he used his influence with members of his depart
mept or of any other branch of the same municipal
government whether he could accomplish the object
TO which his promise related, are in my Judgment, inn
material considerations. cannot charge you, gentle
men, that il necessary that the defendant should
have accomplished the object for which he contracted
charge that the stipulation to accomplish the object
makes out the charge of bribery. l am requested to
charge again that the defendant cannot be convicted
unless he had a criminal intent j have charged you
already upon this point. As the act illegal, the
intent is presumed to be bad-the bargain was cor
charge that Smith is accomplice, and should be
conoborated. have already charged you upon this
point, and charged you that this IS correct. Gentle
men, don't know that | say anything more 10
you. have tired to be Brief and il in considering
this matter you have reasonable doubt that this
contract was made alleged in the Indictment then
the defendant is net guilty but if you believe beyond
a reasonable doubt that this contract was entered into
then you must find the prisoner guilty, without con
sidering the consequences.
After the hearing of numerous exceptions taken by
Mr.. Busted, the Jury retired at quarter-before
p. M o'clock they sent in word that they could
not agree, and asked to be discharged. Judge Capron
did not consent to this They then stood: ten for
conviction to two for acqattal At o'clock yester-
day morning they had not changed.
At p. IN. yesterday the Jury, after being out twen
tytwo hours, and being still unable to agree upon a