New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-10-30


from the city As TO the loss OF the papers he would
only say that by atrOci0us act In which IL had never
been minated that the Mayor had any part be was de-
prived Of their protection go, - .o.,oD
law count which charges that by wful peryerson OF
his powers the Mayor secured payments for his bene
lutte control over city claims far tho county was
concerned the plenary Jurisdiction was vested IN lhe
lion that they we're free from suit was held that the
law gave appeal from tho action OF the Board Of 5
peryisors paying rejecting claim against me
county He understood that these claims In TINS lnuc
ment were county charges and as regards certain ca
Of claims for armores &c. the Board OF Supervisors had
been vested with all the power by express statuJ Tin,
outstanding Some had already passed the ordeal OF the
Board OF Supervisors, either by It's committees Vi ny
vote OF the whole Board. In this state OF aialrs tne
Board OF Audit directed the County Auditor 70 eoeGs
these claims. Not single bill was passed ny M.
Hall without the evidence OF approval D p In,1
county officer and the certificate OF the Boara
OF Supervisors through its proper officer Gn
IT, This, taken in connection with the admlssiqn 81 e
prosecution, that not dollar OF lhls money nau GSo
stained Mr. Halls pockets ana that the % @ ~ Mr.
utterly failed to show any knowledge on tne par 0 ~
Hall 81 the fraudulent charaoterof the claims sucehI
ly, be thought, sustained the defence. ,
lie proceeded to cite his authorities. He called atten
ton to the in regard 10 the presunptOns as 70 Ie
ministerial. The textbooks said the presumption was
always IN favor of their validity. ,,,
Mr. Peckbam-We shall not dispute that proposllon.
Mr. Buckley-The prevailing question IN thls case was
the intent with which the Mayor did acts which lac Is al
ana thus the charge that he did not audit fell IL was
the intention which must constitute crmlnaliy. h S
and intent must both concur before crime c0nd DC
predcaed and this notwithstanding the rule that lhdn
must be presumed to intend the natural consequences Oh
Tia acts He cited from Bishops criminal law to the
effect that the criminal mind was the essence OIL te
crime, without which could not eXs M supolS ~
this doctrine he cited Howard, l3l tWlkes against
Dnsman) action by marine Tor illegal detsntoh
and punishment by command ng o1cer IN WHICH
this principle maintained, and IN whlch
a definition Of willful" Is Oted from an Ehgsh cas-
thai IL s an act done CONTRARY the persons conyic
ton" In New Hampshire this precise point was raised
in an indictment against the Overseers OF inc poor
Judgment was arrested in that because there was
no evidence of criminal intent case IN 30 Lansing,
page a. holds that where the law provided that certain
railroad commissoners,h they wllI1y neglocteu "
perform their duties their office should become vacant
40 appointment was authorized except III the case
He then proceeded to discuss Mayor Munros case in
DEMO- and the People agt Brooks In DEMO, when nc
presumed would be cited 10y the oher slOe. III tnoIo
cases there refusal 10 do direct physical act IN
the last 10 refusal TO administer an Oath,
mere ministerial act similar action Houu nav o ~
refusal by the Mayor TO sign these cerhCates not lOI
any reason, but for his pleasure On the questions
OF burden Of proof raised by his requests 70 ne
cited Wbartons criminal law, which lays down the dlI-
dence lie most respectfully called attention to the
Importance of these questions, not only 10 Ine
public Office that the law should excuse mere errors OF
judgment Human nature was and would continue I h 70
be fallble No could be found who, looking Dack
the past, could not see errOrs very 0ieh SIIOs qi
failing others loss, yet errors which ialDio humanity
could not have avoided He recalled how, III the great
Schuyler frauds the papers rang WIN cnirses thae
others must have known OF the frauds Whcn Tere P
powers lie recalled how another deaicallon III VIZ, Ilo
Bank OF gland charged TO one director was ultimately
TO have doubts
SPECIAL REQUESTS OF THE PROSECUTION.
After recess Mr.. Peckham said: will submit in the
first place. following the example OF the counsel for the
defendant requests the part OF the prosecution 10 the
Court TO charge in this case. We first request your
Honor to charge that if tie jury believe from the ey
donce that the defendant Mayor OF the City Of New
York in April 1870 and thereafter, and that no accepe
rr and then President Board Of Supervisors tat
then the bound to give his personal alien
to the duties thereof and could not delegate toHi
either To the County AuhitOr any other person. -,
Second That the functions imposed by section OF tRe
III ~ NJ i'cndant vlfnllv neglected 20 to meet aud
audit the Liabilities against the county embraced IN the
Indictment, the ofense charged would be complete
THIRD That the auditing under the act required per
sonal animation OF the claims presented,
and required the personal judgment OF the deiehdant
upon evidence presented the auditors and that the de-
ftndant wifuy neglected 10 give such personal atten
ton, and 60 form such personal Judgment u was neg
icct OF official duty and he must be convicted
Fourth. That defeating such examination 20 anothcr
and acting on his report that he had audited the claim
posed by the statute aud that the certifying Of claims in
order that they might be paid on such report ana win
out other examination or investigation Wouu DC d
neglect OF duty.
item il il not necessary that the prosecution should
show the defendant to have acted corrupy or TO nave
known that either both OF his cOaudOrs were act
ing couupty. IL is sufficient II the prosecution snow
wful neglect 10 perform the duties rcqlli 10y e tl
Srfh That il the defendant intentionally neglected
10 perform the duties imposed by the act with reference
10 The items charged the Indictment lie must he con
yicted notwithstanding he acted IN tho belief That he
could delegate to others the duties imposed on himself
by the act that ignorance Of the law IS not excuse
Serenh That II the jury believe from tue evidence
the Indictment without having honestly made up his
mind that they Just and honest claims, and with
heller that such claims we're unjust extrayagant, and
false and fictitious, that by means Of such certihcae
the claims paid that then tue DEFENDANT may DO
conycied on the fourth count on each em to which
the jury believe, from the evidence the ue1ehdaht 80
Eioih, II defendant certified that the bills were
ed.
cate when in fact they were false and fraudulent ana
had not been audited this would be such misconduct in
Office as to constitute indctabe Ohense Gt common
MR. rEcKnAMs ARGUMENT
Mr. Peckham went at great length, citing many au-
thorities and precedents He argued that the act re-
quired them all and have the advantage Of per
sona discussion the claims II they failed to DO that
they neglected TO do duty He distinguished between
this and the case by Mr. Buckley that in the latter
the officers had begun 10 40 Ine ACT .eluIeu, Dut n
erred in their conclusions. Had the Mayor examined
into claims and 10 an erroneous conclusion
then he could not have been indicted FOR mistake IN
Judgment. But the charge here was he made no such
And first he insisted that they were bound to meet,
and he cited the statute permitting majority OF any
board act upon meeting OF ALL In support OF TINS
he cited the Kern, against the Supervisors OF
Chenango County and the case OF kruyer vs. Inc Hud
and the latter to appraisers OF railroad damage There
distinction In some cases where the act was minis
teria merely but where Il was judicial there must DO
meeting the end that there might be DISCUSSIONS ana
consultation. Mr.. Peckham cited several other
arose whether the duty Imposed was judicial or minis
tera II the latter there was room TO infer that they
might act separately He might cite pretty good au-
thority in this the defendants own request 10
charge that this judicial act. As both agreed on
this perhaps IL was not necessary 10 give authority out
he cited analogous authority.
Mr. stoughton said he had no doubt OF the propoton
an officer having supposed an act to be ministerial,
which really Judicial an indictment against Linn lOr
his mistake was sustained.
Mr. PeckhGm-TheD these persons were bound when
about 10 act these claims to meet and the omission
OF ministerial act OF meeting for the purpose OF that