New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-11-24

bne, confederate and agree together 20 violate ana
evade The provisions Of the said act by certain mesnS
which were then and there in themselves criminal,
viz by willfally unlswfllly and maliciously passing
a resolution through the Common Council, and Oh
tanning the sanction Of the Mayor thereto, directing
the Controller TO execute lease 20 the Asyum of GER
tain premises described IT. the said resolution; that
the Corporation owned the aid premises that those
Of the defendants who were Aldermen wiiliGiy, VI,
lawfully and rnslciously did vote in ayor oil and hii
md assist in the passage Of such resolution ana dd
Obtain the approval Of The Board Of Aldermen 10 ssla
resolution and the same duly certified 10y the
Clerk Of said Board and the Ike charge against
those Of the defendants who were members OF tne
Board Of Comclnen and that WOOD, a. mayor, dli
willfury malciously and Gn'awfuly approve OF SAID
resolution. :.
A conspiracy is defined to be e combination Of two
or more persons to accomplish oil Illegal object, or a
lawful object by Illegal means. .,
The I'd Rev. II stutes S74, Sec 3, provides that If
two or more persons shall conspire 10 commit any
ofense &C., they shall be deemed to DE guilty OF a
misdemeanor. Sec. 10 provides that no agreement,
except to commit felony upon the person Of another,
or TO commit arson or burglary, shan he deemed a
conspiracy unless some act under sach agreement be
dcDe effect the object thereof by one OF more OF the
parties to such agreement. Although by the statute
an overt act must be averred in order TO complete the
oense yet the cis Of the Oense is the corrupt agree
nent The conspiracy charged or intended to be
charged in this instrument is 10 do Ell unlawful act.
What is the unlawful object which the ccnspraors IN
this case charged with conspiring to attain The
indictment alleges that it was to violate and evade the
provisions of the said act meaning the amended
Charter Of 1867, by certain means which were in
themselves criminal, TO wit by passing a resolution
through the Common Council directing the Controller
to execute lease &C. The allegation that the stat
ute was TO be violated or evaied by means III them
selves criminal, cannot help the count, as It Is not
shown what the means were, and so far as the facts
alleged can aid in determining the character OF the
means they to be lawful. But what was The ob-
ject sought to be obtained The public prosecutor
argues that that object TO give lease for more
than ten years. and without putting mp atpubhc auc
ton, &c But no such object or design is charged. 1t
is sad the statute to be violated by the passage
of the resolution. If have succeeded in showing
ths; the passage of the resolution did not violate the
statute then certainly it was rot unlawful The count
does not show by aveTment that 1T was the object vi
the conspiracy to create illegal term or 10 give
lease otherwise than by public auction.
The only other ground on which this count can De
sustained is, by treating the allegation that the de-
PENDANTS conspired to violate or evade the act suf
cient without any specification OF the particular Sec
ton clause Of the act the eOnspfatOfs "esoheu anu
agreed TO violate
The English Courts have lpheld indictments for con-
spiraces quite vague and indefinite as tbis rs 10
the statement OF the object OF the conspiracy In our
owu Courts more stringent, and, as think, more
inst and sensible doctrine is insisted on, ana the pub
lie prosecutor Il required 10 state truly and speccai-
ly the precise object contemplated the conspiracy
But as lean find decision directly on the question,
and as if is not entirely free from doubt, shall hold
the count sufficient in form in the respect alluded TO-.
AsI have aimed to dispose Of this case on the
mt its rather than on mere technical rules OF plead
ing will assume, therefore, for the purposes OF the
case that conspirng for an unlawful purpose prop
erly charged in the indictment, and that that unlawful
purpose was the violation of the ac, of 1917 already
cited. have declared my opinion to bs that the de-
PENDANTS by voting for the resoutonwe not liable Tor
a msdeIneanOr, as the statute made the giving the
lease and not voting for the resolution ordering the
lease the violation which is denounced as a mis-
demeanor The last clause of the eighth section of
the act of 1857 expressly declares that no Alderman
or Councilman shall be questioned in any other place
for any speech or vote in either Board.
We must give effect to this clause as well az to the
10th and list sections Of the act. In the view
between them The statute not only does not seek TO
hold the member Of the Common Council responsible
for his vote, but expressly exempts him from al &C,
counabity therefor unless it is the result OF ofciai
corruption He as responsible when be shall have
aided in doing act forbidden by law, and that act,
when DONE declared to be nisdemeanor.
If am right in these views it follows that although
the votes Of the defendants may be proved to show an
overt act by the conspratore yet II Is not on the ph
cipe that the votes thus permitted to be proved are
Illegal bot "a lawful acts done in execution OF the con-
spracy. Giving, think must do, foil force and
effect to the exemption from respons1pity oa 'o"Tg
pubc prosecutor cannot therefore rely on the defend
ants votes for the resolution in ques on a. any evil
dence Of the unlawful confederacy that must b. proved
by other and independent evidence
of this indictment is insufficient for the reason that it
sets forth no crime or Otense. 80
Second that the first CONT is valid in law, ant that
the defendants must be held to answer said count.
The motion to qnash is therefore DENIED, so ir Us
the first count is concerned
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE.
At the opening of the Court of Oyer ana 1erminer
this morning MI Blapkman stated that he was eoun-
sci for Mr.. Steers in the matter OF the Indictment
against Fernando Wood and others, and being iu-
formed that the District Attorney still proposed to try
the matter he desired an opportunity to be heard IN
relation to the jurisdiction OF tins Court lie was pre-
pared to show that this Court had right to originate
Complaints or an Indictment for misdemeanor.
Judge Mullen remarked that as II had been ihtiinat
ed the object of The prosecution was 10 carry up 'e
case to the Court OF Appeals he understoo1 none o
the defendants desired to aVail themselves VI Plco"
the jurisdiction.
1t was finally arranged that MIR. Blankman should
have an opportunity TO present his views tomorrow
morning
THE fIFTY-FoURrE STREET FRAUD.
The People AIT. Joseph X. Taylor ct al
The defendants were indicted for conspirng 10 de-
fraud the City Treasury in the matter OF The Fniy-
fourth street assessments for curbing, &C.. Judge
Edmonds appeared this morning as counsel for the
defendants, and submitted motion to quash the IN.
dictment, upon various grounds, which he proceeded
to argue at length.
formal defect which could be corrected by new III
dictment but upon what they believed to be sub
stana grounds holding that under no circumstances
could such indictment lie. There were TWO classes
of people who had the least possible chance OF Justice
from the jury-box. ,
representative of Of these classes-the rowdes
about iown-was recently executed. The other class
those connected with the City Government about
which there had been so much hue-sndcry that il
almost impossible to keep prejudice against them ont
of the Jury box. The press earnest IN it, praises
and denunciatons even of this Court. They desired
t. avoid the influence OF this prejudice
This man Taylor authorized to collect large
sums of money and he had been advised that he had
right to retain his fees from the funds so collected
without being obliged 10 resort TO tedious litigation
10 nhtain them from the CITY. The specia collector