The New York herald., 1862-03-09
Court OF General Sessions.
Before Hon. Judge MoCunn.


MOTION TO euAsH THE INDICTMENT AGAINST JANIS y.
TAYLOR FOR ALLEGED ATTEMPT 10 BxIBE ALDER
NAN DAYTON.
Soon after opening Of the Court the argument On
motion to quash indictment found by the last Grand
Jury against James Taylor, complaint OF Alderman
Iayton for an alleged attempt to brbs him TO vote for
the purchase Of the Fort Gansevoort property,
menced. Messrs. Jas. T. Brady and Marsh ana Judge
Russell appeared for Mr. Taylor, while A. Oakley Hall,
Esq, represented the prosecution.
Mr. Marsh opened the argument observing that the In
dctmsnt founded upon fabrication and was part
OF an G.rocious conspiracy to extort money from Mr.
Taylor II was the consequence Of civil action brought
by Alderman Dayton, founded Iupon insinuatons; that
those papers were prepared in the Office Of attorney
and under his consultation, who had himself brought
action against Mr. Talo to recover $23 900 for alleged
professional services and that while the papers be-
log prspa ed another individual stood by anxious to
cei,e them that he might as he did, make service Of
him. which person had caused still another action to be
brought, in is sisters name against Mr. Taylor to re-
$50 COO for alleged services This Individual had
threatened to do Mr. Taylor great injury unless lie set
tied this pretended claim. Alderman Dayton had
not stated, under oath or without oath, that Mr..
Taylor had approached him or not with the
ossr Of brbe or olhsr pecunary inducements.
Dayton was lawyer, ana he well knew that the very
poin Of pleading was 90 state case or bribery IL In
Deed Of bribery exsted yet he did not state i an,
but Carefully avoided any such responsibility lie ALDER
man Day tony that the stenographers notes
OF his reurks ard correct report Of what he
|
wasi itself trne, and only venturing ON such state.
mcnt whore the charter Of the city stretched it's gs
his head, where tho walls Of the grand ufy room
shut all liability The fact that Mr.. Dayton lad In
voved himself In sefconradictonS was utterly fatal to
any reliance be placed upon thsm After making his
speech in ta Board OF Aldermen Mr.. Dayton xpressy
discaned Mr. Thompson that any such oor had been
Mr.. Taylor. These facts and others more e.
niacant which he did not deem it advisable publicly
state were the ground upon which the present motion
based Tho Cosnsel contended that the averments
in the indictment, If granted TO bs true did not alege
tna rnafl rhA fact
that the time OF tho alleged offer TO Alderman Dayton
there nothing pending before the Common Coun-
eli upon which such an offer could be made. He
proposed to show that on the facts IL il should
he conceded that they acts offence against the
Law had been commiited for the alleged offer not
in to any action thon pending before the
Common Council. The only remaining question Was
whether tho supposed facts alleged in the indictment
came within the fifty second section of the charter
which read thus-"Or which may by law bo brought
before his official capacity" Counsel submitted
that the clause only referred to Aldermen far il
ferred to them all, in their judicial and in their
oicial capacity This proposition was dwet upon AZ
length nv tho COUNSEL who contepded that the ndct-
ment in this res pect detective Counse showed the
orga Of the above phrase in the charter claiming that
sooly applicable 10 State officers. In conclusion,
geney which, innocent in its happening, makes the
offence, and, not happening, leaves tho act pure?'
District Attorney Hall followed, romarking that the
notice served by counsel for the defendant forth
that indictment aid not state facts sufficient 10
stute cause OF action against the defendant, and to
that point he would conBne his observations isoatins
himself from knowledge Of all the parties and facts in
the AS the lawyer for the people, he would conne
his to the legal aspects OF the aud contend
that the indictment set forth facts sufficient TO constitute
a cause Of action. The indictment found regularly
BY the Grand Jury, and contained tho facts which were
embraced by the statute and which were necessary TO
be sustained in order 10 Qbod the indictment. AZ the
motion to quash this indfment was addressed to ID
Court before his Honor called
10 grant il he must bo satisfied that this was not only
doubtful against the people, but clear against
them. Counsel contended that the very closr
for the ople and that the alleged facts intended to be
embraced by the Indictment completely cred by
the sa.u.e n question Ns na IN an ingenious ana
counsel the defendant the section Of the charter
which was under its discussion. showing its intended
meaning The ayc ycrmants OF the indictment were
merasod, which have beea already published in col
umDs The District Attorney adduced, another
Why the Court should not quash tho Indictment tie
idea Of the common law that the attempt TO ap.
proaah person holding responsible office was
offence. The Court should leave the party 20 his ulti
mate remedies OF either trial by his exceptions and az
such thing should happen conviction; then motion
in arrest Of Judgment.
to qlash inncmons similar TO the one under discussion
lid been particularly successful, and trials had
for IN overy Of bribery hcre was an undercurent
OF bad Mr.. b. remarked upoa the singular fact
tat the alleged attcmpt to hribe Alderman Dayton was
id to have been made On the 10th or November, while
the complaint not made till January. He would
be sorry il Mr. Dayton ever came upon the
n ami az a wiSuess 10 be mned, a remark
which he did net intend to apply TO his integrity
NJ. Brady flceiiousIy observed that our community
dem ndet soehng new, aud for year TO eapse With
OOt bhuiut huO'uicho lor DiioeTys
was itou ia the Intellectual bin Of fare served
up 10 the public The learned lunsel examined the
srucoa Of the statute both in reference TO its words
and sense, maintaining that the matter alleged in
the Indictment could not have been brought before
Alderman Dayton by law in his Official capacity. Counsel
claimed that there was total msconstrnction Of the
words -may be brought before an Alderman or men,
Dor of the common Council in his Official capacity and
contepde that these DIS did not matter which
by possibility at some time might 10 subjected 10 his
official cognzance, but matter when the bribery was
attempted actually before him.
papers ia the case and reserved his decision.
Mr. Edmund Elankiaan Esq, counsel for the accused,
Charles Cobcl, who stands convicted OF producing
abortion the person OF Mary Ann Baker submitted to
the Court 40 elaborate argument motion arrest Of
Judgment The Court will deliver its decision ia few
days.