The New York herald., 1872-11-24
THE IHPERILLED JUDGE.
Argument Of the Prosecution in the
Case Of Judge Prindle.
Yhe Ofences Of the County Judge Analysed and
Explained-A Terrible Array Of Disgrace
full and Acknowledged Facts-Curtis
To Be Tried on the I'd December.
ALBANY, n. Y, Nov %, 1872.

closing argument In behalf OF the prosecution
Alter coDgratulatng the Senate upon the ap-
preaching conclusion OF this tedious and long con-
sinued trial and thanking the Senators for their
patience, he said he would be brief as possible,
confning himself to general summary OF the evil
aence. He would not take up the time OF the
Senate by replying to the general remarks OF
che respondents counsel concerning matters
which had relation with the cause ana which
were not germane to it. But before commencing
with the evidence he would refer to the remarks
made concerning the jurisdiction Of the Senate IN
this case. 1t had been claimed that the Senate
had jurisdiction OF only the official acts OF the
respondent. This he denied. He claimed that the
Senate was not confined to acting upon the
sf1cal misconduct OF the respondent nor
tnat its judgment alone was to be passed
uDon such conduct. The Senate must pass upon
his conduct rs q citizen and as a man---his moral
conduct as wei as his official conduct. 1t was
within the high discretion OF the Senate to say
whether he is a tit and proper person to hold the
position or county Judge.
Counsel here read the provision OF the constitu-
ti0n also extracts from the case OF Judge G. w.
Smith, who was removed he claimed, solely for
misconduct as citizen and man) Now, said he,
II the Senate 1nd that this
RESPONDENTS CONDUCT AS A CITIZEN
has been bad, 1t is our duty 10 remove him from
the Office he has disgraced. Such a Judgment, he
admitted, win fall with great force and weight
upon the respondent, and not only upon him but
upon his family. II will be dark cloud upon all
his future lie but, said counsel, We ask II not in
the spirit OF vengeance, but that the majesty OF
violated law may be vlndicated. We do not ask it,
however, unless you find by the evidence that this
respondent is unt TO hold tins high Judicial posi-
tion. ana .hen, II you do so find, We demand 1t III
the name OF justice.
Counsel then turned to the matter OF fees. He
said by the law OF lo4d snrrogates were allowed
fpaS NJ
4 then subsequently by another law these 1eeswere
4 taken away from surrogates and made retnrnabIe
to the County Treasurer but these surrOgates we're
prohibited from performing these services except
payment OF the fees, and on payment OF the tees
subsequently, again. the fees were abolished; but
now how is it to be found that the duties
These duties We're yet to be performed The salaries
! rOl the surrOgates were paid and they were eX
&c to do. but this respondent has refused to per-
form these services There Is no question as to
mo- ne ne a tbese
services. This, he says, was<his construction OF
,the law, and If he was mistaken in this respect
counsel maintained that he was mistaken - At his his
peril. He then proceeded to argue that +. W. Ray
was, in faet the RESPONDENTS clerk. The act tot OF
SO practiced; that he was a clerk
Is shown by the evidence all through, and every
body bavlng business to transact in the office so
regarded him. Counsel proceeded at some length
80 argue that this was the true position OF Ray In
the Office, ana the result Of the arrangemen MT was
TIE WORK DONE FOR NOTHING,
and Ray got his office rent, fuel and light free.
Judge Prindle sends everybody to Ray to have the
work done, and when the pay Is received 1t Is
turped over to Prindle Is this conduct proper2
Is 1t such conduct as county Judge should en-
gage inY ls II such conduct as the Senate OF this
State should endorseY
Counsel then referred to the Bowdich case. Here
Was o widow TO whom her late husband had left
his estate during her ne the estate was here pat
matter One OF them man in Connecticut
nephew, came over 10 sec what was to become OF a
share which ne thought ought TO come to him 1t
Is given out that the widow was about to go to
the state Of Ohio, and there have the estate ad.
this '''Ian man rom rom Connecticut the the widow IS
ssaopped IRON gong 10 o9 oy PrTceeo prog
Rs eS mastsr MAKES sao o iAes Of O% COSTS
which he gets this respondent to tax and the poor
widow has to pay Now, SAID counsel, tins biil OF
costs was an outrage. every item was an extortion
and yet this respondent agrees 10 1t and endorses
1t. He then referred to
THE BARRows ESTATE CASE
lp which the executor called on the respondent TO
have settlement. The respondent informed him
tanned IN the win; that it would be necessary to
apply TO the Supreme Court for power
sye ss Tls na executor w0sa a1. Gs 20 mSseR
1t must be done, and asks how much the expense
would be. The respondent says may be 500; the
executor tells him TO go ahead, and ne does go
ahead. Now any lawyer knows this TO be very
simple and not u very expensive matter; but the
respondent, together with his man Ray take the
matter In hand This RESP londent Is prohibited by
statute from doing business OF this sort. Why, he
not only violated the statute, but he practsed
GROSS FRAUD THE SUPREME COURT.
He and tnis man Ray appear before re, the Court
respondent and Ray aud the Judge signs it; and
now, when the Judge is brought here and put on
the stand he swears that he did not know the
contents OF that order or he never would have
granted it. He signed without examination, oe-
cause IL was an order made up on stipulation and
was probable lhat both parties being rep. rep.
resented, both Interests were prot,ctsd.- Bpt
the fact OF the parties acting together gs,,la ass as
Judge Boardman. Counsel insisted that II
Judge Boardman had examined the order and seen
order. 1t was downright fraud and nothing else
But counsel says the transaction may be performed
by him as counsel though not as Surrogate. Let
US see. After securing this order from the Su-
preme Court II Is to come before the surrogate Tor
final action SO we see Prindle the surrogate
passing upon an order procured fraudulently 10y
Prnlle the lawyer and all this IN the face OF the
law, which prohibits surrogates from practising as
Oi this law. Even ii he was igno,
refused TO act for or against an executor in case
the final action OF which is to come before him. Ii
did not need law; it should not need law to tell
man holding the position OF Surrogate that he
should not thus act. Counsel then took up
THE GOVERNMENT BOND TRANSACTION,
In which the respondent purchased OF the Old lady,
Mrs. Russell, such bonds without paying her the
premium on them, Counsel presented this case in
the strongest light against the respondent, and
pronounced II one Of downright robbery. He next
referred TO the returns to the Supervisors required
Of the respondent by the statute, and insisted
that the returns he made were cheating returns.
They were made with the purpose and intention OF
cheating, and they did cheat He characterized
this conduct as conspiracy between Prinde and
some members oI the Board TO permit him 10 eyade
the statute and keep little more money in his
pocket than he was justly entitled to. IL was the
most dlsgraceiu act he tthe counsel) ever knew or
heard OF on the part of judicial onlcer. Counsel
closed by saying:-"lt is promised by his counsel
that this respondent win never do these things
which are complained OF again. He promises
this. Why, II may have been that Judge John
ii. McCunn would never have committed his offence
again. IL may have been that George G. Barnard,
whom you have said shall never hold an ofice OF
honor or profit ever again, would never have re-
yeated his offence 1t is said by counsel that there
s a conspiracy TO persecute this respondent, and
that these charges emanate from the conspiracy.
These charges proceed from the people OF Che
mango county, who ask that they be relieved from