The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-08

" II,
foregoing Is a copy in your handwritng-thls ex-
hibltH A. Yes sir, including the red INK.
gave that account with some otuer Bills. to E. A.
woodward, Deputy Clerk of the Board OF Supervi.
q. How long have you known woodwards A.
o now long had he been CLERK Of the Board Of
longer presented the bill to MIN In the room OF the
Clerk Of the Board OF Supervisors.
Q. How many bills dld you present to him at that
time A. Three olhers-four in all.
q. How long afterwards did you receive the &C.
COUNT A. About Two weeks;it might have been
Q. At the time You received the warrant was it
70 osr Yss SIR there
Board and Mr.. Connolly's order for the warrant b..
Witness identified blank forms produced as being
and attached to the warrant
@ Were any other papers signed ct the time you
the warrant' A. From woodward.
q. DID you give receipt for this blllS A. Yes
o. Is that the form Of the receipt A. Yes, sir;
the blank Is the same.
q. You gave a receipt in that form, signed 1t and
gave 1t back In return for the warranty A. Yes,
Q. These papers, were they all pinned together
on and the others might have been mucilaged on
or attached 10 some way; left the balance Of the
o. Is this account an honest and Just account9
objected to by Mr. Burrlll.
Mr.. Tremain said he proposed to show that the
whole Of the account with the execution OF perhaps
thirty.hve per cent OF IT, was fictitious and fraudu.
lent having no foundation in justice. honesty or
TRUTH .
prosecution impatently exclaimed, 'Is there any
ObjectiOnW
Mr.. Burr-0h, yes.
Mr.. Stougnton said one would suppose that
person VINO had read this Indictment and was
familiar with criminal law or the purpose for which
criminal prosecutions were instituted could not be
would not say that the effort to make it. however,
was unexpected after the extraordinary opening
they had been INDUCED with. What was this sup
posed offence, as charged BY the indictment and
defined by lawf The indictment was framed under
section 3s or the Revised Statutes, which read that
where II had been enjoined by law upoa
any public offlcer and where no speciaI
provision for its punishment had been made should
be accounted msdemeanor. The indictment was
procured under the supp0sitt0n that there was
certain duty enJoined upon the defendant BY the act
session laws OF that year. ft was provided that sal
claims incurred previous TO the passage OF this act
shall be audited by the Mayor, &cn His Honor
would observe that the duty which IL was supposed
came within the provision OF section 80 imposed
upon the Mayor, IN connection with two other off,
claims having probably Deen passed ana allowed by
Inc BOARD OF Supervisors, 1t could easily oe under
stood how IL happened that the Mayor and
his associates considered that their duties
were substantially ministerial All claims
so passed by the Board OF supervisors
Competent tribunal that had power to say what
claims were liaDllities. But the Mayors duty was
JUDICIAL and Tor the exercise OF that he was as
irresponsible to the law his Honor was for the
exercise OF mis- duties on the Bench. The nature OF
the duty thus Imposed. tnen, was lpQ'cial and, ~