The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-03
Careful Canvass Of the Votes Of the
Senators in Each Case.
THE CONDEMNED RECEIvERsHIPs
MoCunn's Removal from Office
Unanimously Affirmed.
THE PRINDLE TRIAL PROGRESSING.

STATE SENATE, ALBANY, N T., July 2, 1877
The Senate met this morning, pursuant to ad-
journment, to proceed with the case Of Judge
McCunn. In the absence of the Lieutenant Gov
ernor, Senator Woodin called the Senate to order
ut ten O'Clock.
None of Judge McCunn's counsel were In the
Senate Chamber, though Colonel Davis was
present in the library watching the progress
OF the case. Senator d. P. Wood suggested
that the case Of Judge McCunn go over
until all the members Of the Senate were pres
ent. This did not meet with approval, and the
clerk was ordered to inform counsel of respondent
that the Senate would hear them at once II counsel
desired.
SUMMING UP.
Mr.. John f. Parsons, OF counsel for the Bar Associ
ation proceeded to up calling the attention OF
the Senate to the particular points in the prosecu
ton they had substantiated. Abiding to the pres
ence OF Judge McCunn during the early stages of
the case and OF his sudden retirement with coun-
sell the speaker thought 1t strange that those
gentlemen should leave SO suddenly and drop
the case II they deemed their client innocent OF the
charges. Referring to the passage in the letter
OF counsel resigning from the case Mr.. Parsons
said he thought IL was written for effect
only, to influence the action Of Senators. He
claimed that the evidence proved that Judge
McCunn had been guilty Of malfeasance in ONCE
not question the power and right of Judge McCunn
TO appoint receivers, but the circumstances attend
ing such appointments were objected to. Counsel
instanced the fact that when two men wanted
receiver appointed in the Bininger case they went
to Judge McCunns house at midnight,
taking two bottles Of wine with them for
refreshments. One bottle was drank and
the other left at the Judges house. Who ever heard
OF such miserable bride The result of this
midnight visit was the appointment OF miserable
fellow to the receivershp OF over three hundred
thousand dollars worth of property. At the time
OF such appointment Judge McCunn assured Mr..
Clark, OF the firm Of Clark Bininger, that
Hanrahan was lone Of the boys" and should be
taken OF at the expense of the creditors of the
firm. The
INTERCH ANGE OF MIDNIGHT VISITS
between Mr.. Clark and Judge McCunn were then
alluded to, showing the intimacy which existed be-
tween the parties, an intimacy ineXcusable under
the circumstances. One Of the statements
made by Mr.. Parsons, to the effect that the
Official decisions in few important cases before
Judge McCunn were written by another lawyer In
New York, created no little merriment. These de-
cisions, 1t will be remembered, attracted marked
attention from the members OF the bar throughout
that $4,000, paid by Morgan to McCunn for house,
was oiled" from the Clark 4 Blninger case.
to adjust their partnership duties and should have
bee subordinate to the proceedings In the interest
of the creditors ofthe firm; whereas Judge McCunns
action had directly contrary effect
At the close OF Mr.. Parsons summing up the Sem
ate went into secret session. remaining therein for
half an hour On reOpenng the doors Senator
Woodin. President pro tenn, announced that pursu-
ant to the directions OF the Senate the clerk would
read
against Judge McCunn affirming corrupt conduct
in the appointment of receiver In the case Of
Clark vs. Bninger, and of conspiring with James
+. Morgan, Daniel H. Hanrahan and other persons
togrevent and obstruct Justice &C. .u., 49,,
President asked, senator, how say you, is the first
item Of the charge proven %
Senator Adams arose and answered, Proven"
This same course was adopted, each Senator
rising In his place and answering Proven"
Senator Lord asked to be excused. He had not
had an opportunity Of being present during the
trial, nor reading the printed testimony. He was
excused from voting
save Senator Lord-voted in the Mr..
Adams, Mr.. Allen, Mr.. Baker, Mr. Benedict, Mr..
Bowen, Mr.. Chatheld, Mr.. Cock, Mr.. Dickinson, Mr..
Mr.. Lewis Mr.. Lowery Mr. MCGOWAN. Mr.. Madden,
Mr.. Murphy, Mr.. Palmer, Mr.. Perry, Mr. Robertson,
Winsow, Mr.. D. P. Wood, Mr. j. Wood, Mr. Woodin.
Ayes, ~.
This item charges that Judge McCunn c0nsplred
with James NJ. Gano to deiraud, In case wherein
one Albert b. Corey was plaintiff and Walter b.
divers times between 18th OF January 1870, and LIST
January, 1872 This charge was voted upon and
BY the vote t rs on tine
Senator Lord being excused from voting. Senator
Murphy voted substantially proven"
THIRD CHARGE-PROvEN.
The third item, alleging that at divers times be-
tween December 10, 1863 and January 1871, Judge
McCunn, while Justice Of the Supreme Court, was
guilty OF corrupt conduct In the case Of Anna NJ.
Elliott vs. Mary p. Butler, with reference to the
premises 81 West Twenty-fousth street, New YORK,
and the appointing OF his brOther-in-law, James NJ.
Gano, as agent OF said premises, thereby enabling
said Gano to receive money due Mrs. Butler,
defendant was then read. The vote showed
that the charge was considered proven by
Senators, twentyseven voting In the Affirmative.
Senator Lord was excused irom voting senator !.a,
stantaly" proven, saying he was not fully SATISFIED
with the evidence relative to the charge OF con-
Spiracy
FOURTH cHARGE-PRovEN.
Alleges that said John H. McCunn at divers times
between February 20, $780, and March rs, 1870 was
guilty OF corrupt practices with reference to an &C
ton pending In the Superior Court between Ed
ward w. Brandon and Jerome Buck and william
Butler Duncan, and other members OF the hrm or
marty appointed Daniel Il. Hanrahan receiver Of
Twenty Senator'S voted the charge proven.
FIFTH CHARGE-PROvEN.
On IsSa and Jannarv I 1872 was guilty of mai and
corrupt conduct as a Judge in an action pending In
the Superior Court, wherein John O'Mahoney was
plaintiff and August Belmont and others defend
ants, and in certain other actions connected there
with in which said McCunn wrongfully entered an
order In an action, July IT, 1882 whereby Thomas j.
Barr was appointed receiver OF $4,000 in gold-the
Fenian funds This charge was adjudged proven
BY the same vote-twentysev In the Affirmative
SIXTH CHARGE--NoT PROVEN.
Alleges that said McCunn In the months OF July
and August, 1869, while Justice OF the Supreme
Court, was guilty OF corrupt practices in q case
wherein Norbury Hicks was plaintiff and 7. W.
Bishop was defendant, In granting an order TO the
Sheriff TO hold defendant to bail In the sum OF
$4,000; that a motion to vacate that order was
heard before said McCunn and denied.
This charge was decided not proven by the follow
ing vote;-.
PRovErsenators Benedict, johnson, Madden and Tie
manp-4
Nor PRovEN-Senators Adams, Allen, Baker, Bowen,
Chathcld Cock, Dickinson, Foster Graham Narrower,
Lewis Lowery Mctiowan, Murphy, Palmer, Perry,
Robertson, Wagner, weisman Wiisow, d. r. Wood, j.
Wood, Woodin-Z3
SEVENTH CHARGE-PROvEN.
This charge alleges that July 9, 1859, Judge McCunn
was guilty OF corrupt conduct In an action pending In
fIe Superior Court, wherein Edward Van Ness was