The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-29

THE COURTS.
lungs COUNTY couRT Of SESSIONS.
Tho Indictment Against the Board Of Super.
visOrs.

Tho Indictment Against the Board Of Super
visors.
Before Judge Troy, Justices Hoyt and VOORHEES,.
Yesterday the seventeen members OF the Kings
county Board OF Supervisors, who had been indicted
BY the last Grand Jury, appeared IN the court for
trial. They were charged with having misappropri-
ated the funds OF the county by paying the salary Of
Mr. Henry Corr Superintendent OF the Poor for the
Second district, without the proper aldavits being
signed to the bill.
The District Attorney, in opening the case before
the jury, stated that the Indictment question had
been found against the defendants for their omission
to have the adavits aixedt6 the bid as the law re-
CURED. At the election in 1865 Henry Corr was a
candidate for the ONCE Of superintendent Of the
Poor Francis Q. Kirby was also candidate at that
election. Henry Corr received majority OF the
votes cast, and was OF course duly elected to that
} occasiohed by the death OF Mr.. Roberts, claimed
tina that f ne mad ID, the r,gnt 70 hold the office for
e eescae Ct a cq but Ps board rSr q
Canvassers declined to give it to him. Subsequently
he brought an action IN the supreme Court, aud it
OF superintendent OF the Poor. That decision was
appealed fromfto the General Term, and there the
Judgment Of the lower court was confirmed Mr..
Corr then, after entering upon the discharge OF his
duties, sends In bill for salary from the LIST OF
January; 1867, az which tlme according TO the de-
cislon OF the court he was entitled, as he claimed
TO have entered upon the discharge OF bis duties
Subsequent to that the Supervisors passed this b
certificate o. election and entered upon the dis
charge oil his duties on the LIST OF January 1861 1t
was claimed that this BILL which was paid, was not
properly verified as required BY law and for that
omission the Board q sunervsors had been n
resolved Itself into simple question OF law.
Mr. Edward Galley, clerk for the Board OF Super
vlsoTS, was called as witness and testified to the
adoption OF the resolution authorizing the payment
OF the bill. 4.
Mr.. William d. yeeder, who appeared as counsel
defendants. pl
TO ind verdict OF acqutta. In the first place the
Supervisors were indicted, as the Indictment alleged
for auditing an account that not properly Yer-
fed; In other words, that bill was presented by
Henry Corr Tor salary for Superintendent OF the
aud That the action OF those or the Supervisors who
had been indicted was unwarranted. 1t was evident
from the statute under which the Indictment was
found that the statute never contemplated bill Of
the kind presented to the Supervisors and upon which
they acted II did not refer to any such account
or any such statement or claim. The
counsel called the attention OF the Court to the
twenty-sixth section of the Revised Statues which
sets forth that account should be audited by any
board Of town auditors, supervisors superinten-
dents or the poor Tor any services disbursements
unless such account shall be made out in items and
accompanied by an AFFIDAVIT attached to 1t. This,
however. was simply the claim o. Henry Corr, Su-
pertntendent OF the Poor from January lthat being
the time he was entitled to the office according to
the decision Of the Supreme Court There were no
items about II. 1t was merely claim. There was
no detailed statement no items Of Disbursements
On the contrary, Mr. Corr merely claimed his salary
DUE which amounted to 81, 200.
Judge Troy charged the jury distinctly that the
statute In reference to accounts 1t had been read
had no application whatever to this case. 1t no
such account required AFFIDAVIT to be attached.
Whatever the action or the Board might have been
on the LIST OF June when the salary was fixedD,
whether valid or Invalid, 1t was not charged In this
Indictment. The jury would have to pass upon the
simply in accordance with the charge In the III
dictment, and II was not necessary TO determine as
TO the legality or illegalIty OF the Board In fixing
their salary in June or at the annual meeting The
simple question which presented itself was Us to
whether the account was one which required an am
davit or not. The jury returned q verdict OF not
guilty.