New-York daily tribune., 1858-11-12

heions. He referred TO the fact that 20 corruption
was charged in the indictment. The City Government
had endeayored 10 do charitable art and failing in
that after a civil suit had failed, they were Indicted
He con.en ed at great length, tha. the City Ieys-
sture ike that If the State and ,hss OF the Coned-
eracy, protected consttutoney in the exercise
Of tier functions that they could not be qres ioue
elsewhere Tor vote. But II, however, they could b.
questioned, indicted, held to bail, and dragged
through the dust of public sensation, this was no,
cfiense Of nature tu be so Questioned. Iney bad
reh, TO give away this land at rouinsl price. The
City Government, az he showed by authority aud
precedent, bad once had such a right and If not
done away, 10 quote iEom lst bHusoy, clearly re-
mains"
In 1885, the freedom Of the city, in gold box,
Was presented to Andrew Hamilton of Philaielphis,
and al recent date Garrett Dyckman had soii o'1
given 20 him for his vaor Such acts had never been
questioned. He cont, nded thst the word be IN
the statute alleged 10 have been violated,
meant sKtsf That Was the lease he d'niec, now-
ever, that this gift of land would have been lease,
should not exist continue in force, at the expra-
ton Of ten years
IL WAS rowhere charged in the Indictment that the
resolution intended make lease for longer period
.nsn ten years and If il Gid the statutes provided
that nothing in indictment should be taken by in-
teudment The lease might have come to termna-
ton long before tie prohibition Of the charter could
act.
Mr. Hall then read several sfidavits.
The affidavit OF Francis j. A. Booze, who WAS ele
Of the Corcmen of 1851 sets forth III substance the
following: He beleves that during the successive al
nnistrstions oi Messrs. Hall and Sweeuy As District
Attorneys, no complaint was ever made I'D oehan oi
the people of any Of the matters mentioned IN the -
dictment. Mr.. Joseph Blunt, in the month OF Dec,
1851, commenced an action, as an attorney IN the
Supreme Court in the name of one Orrin Terry, as
plaintiff against these defendants, by the style OF
the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonsity, with
other defendants, for the purpose as prayed
for as relief, OF enoiniug these defendants
from executing the purpose which, 1t is alleged
in this Indictment, they eonspired to effect MIR.
Joseph Blunt, as such private attorney made per
sonal affidavit in the case for the purpose o procuring
an Injunction against these defendants, which inunc-
ton was denied by the Supreme Court. Mr. Blunt
took an appeal herefrom, the 10th OF October last,
and on day when their Grand jury winch ionnd this
pdictnen 1t was in session Mr.. Blunt served this
on appeal and the suit is now pending. About the
tine the indictment was found, Mr.. Blunt spent many
hours in the Grand Jury room engaged in engineering,
in his official capacity, the same charges against these
defendants, Tor the purposes OF an Indictment winch
be had in manner aforesaid failed 10 sustain, in
his capacity rs private counsel IN the action IN the
Supreme Court.
Mr. Whiting, for the People, contended that the
Statute provided for the punishment OF those who
wlllfuly violated or evaded the provisions Of the
charter, and that if the act done by the Common
Council not violation, 1t was, at least an eva
sion; that the questioning of vote alluded 10 by the
other side was not the question in tais case. What
was now asked was the question OF corruption. The
Indictment cons ined two counts-one for attempt to
conspire and the other for the conspiracy ITSELF The
the as where tDTrt pcfoohs
by false pretenses, two only OF whom had made Che
peteI ses. He held that the resolution was the giving
Of lease and nothing else, and had II been grant
the resolution would have said so. The resolution
fee in perpetuity, or the granting oi lease Tor
ever subject To the voice of the lessee There
other leases beside those for which term Of years
was expressly stated; there such thing as lease
for life which, though not expressly stated, was still
lease for term Of years, the time OF which expired
al the end of the party life. This resolution WAS not
positive grant or gift, il did not state, which il
would have done had such been the case.
Mr.. Graham here asked the counsel whether he al
legged in the indictment, that there was sucn body
az the Roman Catholic Asy um, who would take the
lease To make IL efficacious
Mr.. Whiting said that the Asylum a corporate
body and that therefore, their existence need not be
ret cut in the Indictment any more than when per-
son was CT arged with felony it would be necessary
to state that A. Is. white man, and free
man, &C.. and that the Asylum, having taken
the ground at one dollar per sDnum, they were, to
all inients and purposes in possession. The counsel
stated that the defendants, having done all they
could to perfect the violation whether the same
wa, carried out or not-hey having done their best
to perfect it-they were liable for mlsdemeanor
Every violation Of public statute was misde-
meanor punishable by fine and Imprisonment. 1t
was contended that the oense complained of no
O violation of public statute; but he charged that
the Mayor Aldermen and Councimen had entered into
this conspiracy and, by their respective acts, COM
peted the violation; and having so completed the acts
they have attempted and did evade the charter, and
thus constitute the msdemeanor. Those proceedings
could hot be passed upon as matter OF law, but must
be left to Jury question of fact. The District
Attorney had presented this an abstract one,
to determine the principles of the law relative TO the
right OF the Common Council to vote away the city
property and if the defendants found guilty the
prosecuting officer would ask only for nominal pun
shment, he believed that they had only done their
duty.
10 clock.
MARINE CoURT-Nov. li.-Bsfore Judge THOMPSON.
THE AoKRIssEY AND HEEsAs PRIZE flGHT-suIr
GROWING OUT OF A BET OS THE CHAnPIoSSHIP.
John An ire ews sgt. Ezra White.
This snit to recover $500 alleged to have been
placed in defendants hands bet on the late prize
light Plaintiff counsel stated in substance the fol-
lowing Andrew Hines made a bet Of 500 with C..
Campbell on the fight, each party putting up 80 as a
forfeit, and the money was left with defendant. On
the next day Andrews offered to put up SIS more in
Whites hands, which the latter refused to take. The
mouey was given 10 Hines, and then deposited with
White. Campbell deposited a like sum- betting on
Heenan. When the fight was over, Hines called Tor
the money; by some private arrangement Campbell
claim ed $50 White produced $3.50, asking Andrews
and Hines if il not right they replied yes. Hines
put the money in his pocket, and was about leaving
the house, when Andrews asked him II he was not
gong 10 call for some wine. Hines called for two bot
ties. They then went to the Carlton House, when
Andrews requested Hines To pay man so out OF the
stakes The latter put bis hands in his pocket and
said somebody had picked bis pocket. Andrews asked
him 10 give him tie $40 he put up, and he wond
allow him 20 keep the rest. Hines protested he had
been robbed. Andrews had him arrested, but on eI-
animation he was discharged. The defendant get up
that Andrews did not stake the money with White;
that the money was staked by Hines, and that if did
belong Andrews, il in part paid 70 him, a. he
WAS present at the time the money vas handed over,
and made no objection.
Before the case came 10 trial, settlement was
effected and the suit withdrawn.
Before Judge acCAsTHY
PASTOR SUING ms coNGREGAf!oN foR HIS
SALARY.
Nathan Dayid.ohn az. Der Oeuleinte Rodepn schlom
Plaintiff Is pastor Of the JeSish Congregation